11399062 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

Ex Parte Laroche

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 2016

11399062 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111399,062 0410512006 Jean Laroche 48914 7590 06/10/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/CREATIVE LABS P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2045.255US1 8904 EXAMINER BLAIR, KILE 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEAN LAROCHE Appeal2015-001909 Application 11/399,062 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-28, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Creative Technology Ltd. Br. 2. 2 Claims 8, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Br. 8. Appeal2015-001909 Application 11/399,062 fNVENTION Appellant's invention relates to frequency domain noise attenuation utilizing two transducers. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. An apparatus comprising: a first transducer to provide a first signal; a second transducer to provide a second signal; a sampling module to provide a first sequence of frames from the first signal, and to provide a second sequence of frames from the second signal; a transform module to map each frame in the first and second sequences of frames to, respectively, a .set of frequency components J1(k;/) and a set of frequency components A(k; f) , \vhere k is a frequency bin index \Vhose range is a frequency bin index set, and f is a frame index; a detector module to partition, for each frame index f, the frequency bin index set into disjoint partitions P(j; f), j = 0, 1, ... , J (.f) ~ l , where j is a partition index and J (f) denotes the number of partitions for frame index f, such that for each partition P(j; f) there is one frequency bin index k'(j;f) belonging toP(j;f) such that a functional of A(k;f) and ,~/ ( k; f) is a maximum over the partition P(j; f) ; a gain computation module to provide, for each frame index f, and for each partition P(;';j'), a gain G(Â·1Â·; f), where Gf;'; /') = G" if I A(k''(_j;f);f) I< T, where T is a threshold . . . .. . . , J.f(k'(j:f);f) value less than one and G0 is independent of j, and where G(j;.f) < G0 if I A(k''(j;f);f) I> T. and M(k.(j;f);f) ' a multiplier to provide, for each frame index f, and for each frequency bin index k, the product M(k;.f)G(k;.f), where G(k; f) is a function of the gain G(l;f) for the partition P(l;f) to which k belongs. 2 Appeal2015-001909 Application 11/399,062 REJECTION Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-283 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Avendano (US 200710154031; published July 5, 2007), Barry (US 2009/0060207 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009), and Laroche (US 6,405,163 Bl, issued June 11, 2002). ANALYSIS We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Avendano, except for the recited limitation requiring a detector module to partition a frequency bin index set for each frame into disjoint partitions. Final Act. 4. For that limitation, the Examiner relies on the combination of Laroche and Barry, finding that Barry specifically references Laroche and teaches that solutions to the problem of extracting sources from a multiple source stereo recording are applicable to noise reduction in a mobile phone. Final Act. 4---6 (citing Barry i-fi-f l, 4, 6); Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds that Laroche' s disclosure of regions of influence based on peaks of the sum XL(nk, 3 The Examiner references claims 1-28 in the rejection in the Final Action. See Final Act. 2. We deem the Examiner's error harmless because we presume the Examiner intended to reject all of the pending claims, which are a subset of claims 1-28, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the cited combination. We present the correct claim listing in our analysis for clarity. 3 Appeal2015-001909 Application 11/399,062 t)+ XR(nk, t) teaches or suggests the partitions required in claim 1. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Laroche, col. 3, 11. 34--50); Ans. 16. Appellant contends that Barry teaches away from combining Barry and Laroche and, thus, the combination of Avendano, Barry, and Laroche does not disclose partitioning a frequency bin index set for each frame into disjoint partitions, as claim 1 requires. Br. 9-11. Appellant argues that Barry in the Background section points out drawbacks of Laroche, specifically indicating that the system of Laroche is "limited to the extraction of centrally panned voice." Id. at 10-11. We are not persuaded that Barry teaches away from the combination of Barry and Laroche. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner explains that an artisan of ordinary skill would interpret Barry's comment about the limitations of Laroche to mean only that Laroche is not useful for individually extracting sound sources from left and right signals that are not centrally panned. Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds that Barry's comment "does not significantly relate to the frequency analysis/partitioning scheme of Laroche and its applicability to the system of Barry." Ans. 17. Appellant offers no persuasive explanation or evidence showing how the statement in Barry "discourages the claimed solution," or rebutting the Examiner's findings. Appellant also contends Avendano does not disclose the ratio A(k * (j; .f);f) .Af(k* (j;J).~.f) 4 Appeal2015-001909 Application 11/399,062 recited in claim 1 because E 1 and E2 in Avendano are not frequency components, but rather refer to energy levels of acoustic signals. Br. 11-12. In response, the Examiner explains that Avendano's El(t, co) and E2(t, co) are energy levels of a pair of microphones with reference to a time frame t and frequency bin co, and that the recited M(k*O;f);f) and A(k*O;f);f) are energy levels of a pair of microphones with reference to a time frame f, partition}, and frequency bin k. The Examiner finds that El (t, co) and E2 (t, co) can be considered "frequency components" because they each represent the energy of a signal for a specific frequency bin co. Ans. 18-19. Appellant presents no persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. Moreover, we observe that Appellant's arguments are based on differences in terminology between Avendano and claim 1. See Br. 11-12 (citing Avendano i-fi-122, 23). Identity of terminology in the prior art is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test"). For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding that the combination of Avendano, Barry, and Laroche teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 10 and 17, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. Br. 14. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 11-15, and 18-28, for which Appellant makes no additional arguments. Id. 5 Appeal2015-001909 Application 11/399,062 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-28 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6