Ex Parte LemmaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 201410492568 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/492,568 04/14/2004 Aweke Negash Lemma NL 010742 9692 7590 01/23/2014 Michael E Marion US Philips Corporation Intellectual Property Department P O Box 3001 Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 EXAMINER DEBNATH, SUMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AWEKE NEGASH LEMMA ____________ Appeal 2011-004874 Application 10/492,568 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to methods of embedding a host signal with auxiliary information comprising the steps of filtering the host signal to produce a modified signal and encoding the auxiliary information within the Appeal 2011-004874 Application 10/492,568 2 modified signal using a cross-correlation technique. See generally Spec. p. 1. Claim 10 is illustrative: 10. A method of decoding auxiliary information from an embedded host signal comprising: filtering the embedded host signal to produce a modified signal, decoding the auxiliary information from the modified signal using a cross- correlation technique, wherein the filtering reduces the magnitude of at least one of the following components in the host signal a) low frequency components, and b) dominant tonal components. THE REJECTIONS Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Petrovic (US 5,940,135). Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrovic and Chow (US 4,123,625). ISSUE The dispositive issue argued by Appellant is: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, has the Examiner erred by concluding that Petrovic discloses: wherein the filtering reduces the magnitude of at least one of the following components in the host signal a) low frequency components, and b) dominant tonal components as recited in claim 10? ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTIONS On this record, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10. Appeal 2011-004874 Application 10/492,568 3 The Examiner cites Petrovic’s column 4, lines 50 to 55 (and some other Petrovic passages) for the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 5. The cited passages teach “caus[ing] minimal disturbance.” Petrovic 4:50-55. The Examiner contends that: The Examiner maintains that in order to cause minimal disturbance dominant tonal components has to be reduced. Examiner suggests that Appellant may review at Vokac (Patent Number: 5,663,727) for clarification. Vokac states: “typical audio signals, as well as other signals of a similar nature which are to be analyzed, are not pure single frequency sinusoidal functions. Such signals usually contain a dominant tone which has superimposed thereon other frequencies such as those arising from noise and other effects as well as certain harmonics as well” (col. 3, lines 52-67). Thus, Vokac clarifies that dominant signal contains noise. Thus, in order to cause minimal disturbance (i.e. in order to minimize noise) dominant tonal components has to be reduced. Furthermore, it should be noted that Appellant is arguing about “wherein the filtering reduces the magnitude of at least one of the following components in the host signal a) low frequency components, and b) dominant tonal components” which is intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use then it meets the claim. Petrovic teaches filtering the host signal to produce a modified signal (“The filter/mask 110 modifies the frequency, period or spatial content of the host signal” -e.g. see, col. 4, lines 47-62, see also, FIG. 3, item 110). Ans. 11-12. We agree with Appellant that the cited Petrovic passages do not disclose wherein the filtering reduces the magnitude of at least one of the Appeal 2011-004874 Application 10/492,568 4 following components in the host signal a) low frequency components, and b) dominant tonal components. See Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how the cited Petrovic passages disclose that claimed limitation. We also agree with Appellant that the disputed claim limitation further defines what the filtering claim limitation does to the host signal and therefore, is not merely intended use limitation. See Reply Br. 4. As a result, the Examiner has not presented sufficient basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, and claims 11-16, which were rejected on the same ground. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-9. The Examiner cites an additional reference Chow for those claims. Because the Examiner does not rely on Chow for the disputed claim limitation, Chow does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-16 is reversed. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation