Ex Parte Ludwig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2012

10676249 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LESTER F. LUDWIG
____________

Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-102. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is a multi-channel signal processing system that
variably changes pitch, timing, timbre, and amplitude attributes for each
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

2
received audio signal channel. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A multi-channel signal processing system comprising:
a transducer signal interface for receiving a plurality of distinct
incoming audio electrical signals produced in response to vibrations of an
associated plurality of vibrating elements;
a plurality of signal processors, wherein each processor of said
plurality of signal processors receives a selected one of said plurality of
incoming audio electrical signals, wherein each processor of said plurality of
signal processors process a received incoming audio electrical signal to
produce an audio output signal, wherein said processing of said received
incoming audio electrical signal is performed by variably changing one or
more signal attributes of said received incoming audio electrical signal,
wherein said one or more signal attributes is selected from the group
consisting of:
pitch, timbre, or timing; and
an output signal interface for providing said audio output signal for
each of said plurality of signal processors.

RELATED APPEALS
This appeal is said to be related to ten other appeals. App. Br. 4; Ans.
2. One of these appealed applications was allowed without a Board decision
(10/702,941), and seven other appeals (09/812,400, 10/676,926, 10/702,415,
10/680,591, 10/703,023, 10/702,262, and 11/040,163) have been decided.
See Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2010-009424, 2011 WL 5325639 (BPAI 2011)
(non-precedential) (affirming the Examiner’s obviousness rejections); Ex
parte Ludwig, No. 2009-010281, 2011 WL 1806460 (BPAI 2011) (non-
precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s anticipation rejection); Ex parte
Ludwig, No. 2009-009356, 2011 WL 1211179 (BPAI 2011) (non-
precedential) (affirming the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections in part); Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-008916, 2011 WL 794287
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

3
(BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (affirming the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection in part); Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-008141, 2011 WL 486163
(BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections); Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-006844, 2010 WL 4917799 (BPAI
2010) (non-precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s anticipation and
obviousness rejections); Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-002201, 2009 WL
3793386 (BPAI 2009) (non-precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejections).1

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-102 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hasebe (US 5,990,408; Nov. 23, 1999 (filed Mar. 5, 1997)).
Ans. 4-8.2

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Hasebe discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including processing received incoming audio
electrical signals by variably changing one or more attributes of the received
signals by correcting detected pitch. Ans. 4, 8-10.
Appellant argues that Hasebe does not variably change an incoming
audio signal’s pitch as the Examiner asserts, but rather generates a new

1 Although Application 10/676,249 is identified as a related appeal to related
application 10/683,915, it is not so identified here. Compare ’915 Appl’n
App. Br. 4 with App. Br. 4.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Second Supplemental Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed October 2, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed March 29, 2010; and (3) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
March 26, 2010.
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

4
audio signal with its own pitch based on various control signals. App. Br.
18-21; Reply Br. 2-9. According to Appellant, not only are these control
signals not audio signals, but Hasebe’s adding sound effects, such as
reverberation, to an audio signal does not vary its pitch as claimed. Id.
Appellant adds that Hasebe does not teach that at least one processor is
controlled by an incoming signal processing control signal as recited in
claim 2.3 App. Br. 21-22.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hasebe discloses
a multi-channel signal processing system where:
(1) each processor processes received incoming audio electrical
signals by variably changing one or more attributes of the received signals,
selected from the group consisting of pitch, timbre, or timing as recited in
claim 1? This issue turns on whether Hasebe variably changes the received
signal’s pitch.

3 We presume that claim 2 is separately argued despite Appellant’s omitting
the dependent claims from the Brief’s “Grounds of Rejection to be
Reviewed on Appeal” section as the Examiner indicates. See App. Br. 13;
Ans. 4, 10 (noting this omission). Despite this omission, Appellant
nevertheless includes arguments directed to dependent claims 2, 24, 58, 59,
75, 76, 80, and 92 in the Brief. App. Br. 21-22. But see Reply Br. 9-10
(limiting arguments for the dependent claims based on their dependency
from independent claims). Notwithstanding this inconsistency, we
nonetheless presume that Appellant intended to separately argue dependent
claims 2, 24, 58, 59, 75, 76, 80, and 92 as a group which we treat
accordingly in this opinion. We also note that the Examiner addresses these
claims. Ans. 5, 10.
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

5
(2) at least one processor is controlled by an incoming signal
processing control signal as recited in claim 2?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-23, 25-57, 60-74, 77-79, 81-91, and 93-102
This appeal turns on one key threshold question: Does Hasebe
variably change the pitch of a received incoming audio electrical signal? On
this record, we answer “yes” to this question.
Hasebe’s guitar synthesizer 1 has two pickup devices 2, 3 that
(1) detect vibration waveforms from strings 8, and (2) output corresponding
electrical signals. Hasebe, col. 3, ll. 41-52; Fig. 1. Pickup 3 is adjacent
bridge 4 as shown in Hasebe’s Figure 1 reproduced below:

Hasebe’s guitar synthesizer in Figure 1 showing pickup 3
adjacent bridge 4
The pickups’ electrical signals are (1) converted to digital signals by
respective analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) 10, 11; (2) multiplexed; and
(3) sent to respective pitch detection sections 13, 15 which generate
respective pitch data sets. Hasebe, col. 4, ll. 30-36; col. 5, ll. 37-50; Fig. 3.
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

6
The pitch data sets are sent to control section 16 whose tone control section
47 (1) determines correct pitch data sets based on the corresponding first and
second pitch data sets, and (2) outputs tone control data sets based on
picking position and pitch data sets. Hasebe, col. 5, l. 61 – col. 6, l. 2; col. 9,
ll. 45-53; Figs. 3, 5.
The tone control data sets are then sent to tone generation section 17
which (1) generates tone data sets for tones having specified pitches and
tone colors that are respectively defined based on the supplied tone control
data sets, and (2) sends these data sets to signal processing section 19.
Hasebe, col. 6, ll. 9-25; col. 9, ll. 54-57; Figs. 3, 5. Control section 16 also
outputs control signals to signal processing section 19 for adding various
sound effects including, for example, reverberation and the like. Hasebe,
col. 6, ll. 35-39; Fig. 3. Outputs from the signal processing section are sent
to a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 20, mixer and selector 22, and then to
an output terminal 23 and external equipment 24. Hasebe, col. 6, l. 48 – col.
7, l. 43; Fig. 3. Hasebe’s electrical circuit is shown in Figure 3 reproduced
below:
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

7

Hasebe’s electrical circuit in Figure 3
To determine correct pitch sets, control section 16 compares the
received pitch data sets from the pickups. If they are equal, both pitch data
sets are considered to be correct, and in one embodiment, the first pitch data
set is outputted as a correct pitch. Hasebe, col. 4, ll. 30-44. But if not, one
of the two pitch data sets is outputted as correct based on certain conditions
regarding the pickups’ disposal with respect to other guitar synthesizer
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

8
components, such as the strings, bridge, etc. Hasebe, col. 4, ll. 44-55. For
example, since the first pickup 2 is positioned farther away from the bridge 4
than the second pickup 3, the first pickup tends to output a signal with less
overtones than its counterpart, and therefore has a lower probability of error
for the detected pitch. Hasebe, col. 4, l. 55 – col. 5, l. 10.
Based on this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s position
(Ans. 9-10) that providing this correct pitch data varies the detected pitch
with respect to second pickup 3, namely the pickup closest to the bridge and
when the second pickup’s pitch does not match that of the first pickup 2.
Since the first pickup’s pitch is deemed correct under these circumstances,
its pitch is therefore used to determine the corresponding correct pitch data
sets that are used to determine tone control data sets sent to tone generation
section 17 which uses this control data to generate corresponding tone data
with associated pitches. See Hasebe, col. 5, l. 61 – col. 6, l. 25. Thus, while
Hasebe uses the term “correct” as an adjective, not a verb, as Appellant
argues (Reply Br. 2-3), the second pickup’s pitch data is nonetheless
effectively “corrected” (i.e., varied) via the above-described functionality as
the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 9-10.
Although Appellant contends that Hasebe’s associated control signals
are not audio signals (Reply Br. 7-9), they are nonetheless derived from
audio signals as Appellant acknowledges (Reply Br. 7) and therefore fully
meet the recited “incoming audio electrical signals.” That is, nothing in the
claim precludes these signals from constituting digital signals derived from
analog audio electrical signals either as (1) direct digital representations of
analog audio signals (i.e., outputted from ADCs 10, 11), or (2) associated
derived signals downstream from the ADCs. Accord Ans. 9-10. Nor does
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

9
the claim preclude synthesizing a new signal from tone generation section 17
based on these derived signals for the reasons noted above. Appellant’s
arguments in this regard (App. Br. 20) are unavailing, for they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. We are likewise unpersuaded by
Appellant’s arguments regarding Hasebe’s sound effects (App. Br. 20-21
(citing Hasebe, col. 6, ll. 37-50); Reply Br. 8), for they do not persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Hasebe providing correct pitch data noted
above.4
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 3-23, 25-57, 60-74, 77-79, 81-91, and 93-
102 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 2, 24, 58, 59, 75, 76, 80, and 92
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 2
reciting that at least one processor is controlled by an incoming signal
processing control signal. The Examiner finds that Hasebe’s signal
processing section 19 is so controlled (Ans. 4)—a finding that is reasonably
supported by the multiple inputs to that section shown in Hasebe’s Figure 3.
Appellant’s contention that Hasebe does not receive input from outside the
system (App. Br. 21-22) is unavailing, for nothing in the claim precludes the
internal control signals that control Hasebe’s signal processing section 19.

4 To the extent that Hasebe’s adding reverberation does not variably change
timbre as Appellant asserts (Reply Br. 8) is a question that is not before us,
for the Examiner’s position is based solely on pitch as corresponding to the
recited signal attribute. We therefore decline to engage in that inquiry here
in the first instance on appeal. We do note, however, that nothing in the
term “variably changing” timbre precludes adding or removing timbre under
its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appeal 2010-008330
Application 10/676,249

10
The weight of the evidence on this record therefore favors the Examiner’s
position.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 2, and claims 24, 58, 59, 75, 76, 80, and 92 not
separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-102 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-102 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc