Ex Parte Ludwig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2011

10702415 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LESTER F. LUDWIG
____________

Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention enriches timbre of audio signals by adding
swelling resonance and/or twang by providing plural audio signal delays,
each with high resonance positive feedback, distortion characteristics, and
selectable delay times. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶ 0231; Fig. 39. Claim
1 is illustrative:
1. A system for enriching timbre of audio signals by
adding swelling resonance, twang, or both, said system
comprising:
an incoming audio signal; and
a plurality of audio signal delays, wherein each delay of
said plurality of audio signal delays receive signal inputs
comprising said incoming audio signal and a distinct high
resonance positive feedback signal, and includes a distinct
selectable delay time corresponding to a period of a desired
resonant frequency, wherein each delay of said plurality of
audio signal delays combine said received signal inputs
resulting in a combined signal, and after said combined signal
reaches a predetermined threshold, distortion is introduced into
said combined signal, and wherein each delay of said plurality
of audio signal delays generates an outgoing signal according to
said selectable delay time, and wherein said outgoing signal
comprises said combined signal and any distortion that has been
introduced.

RELATED APPEALS
This appeal is said to be related to six other appeals in connection
with Application Serial Numbers (1) 09/812,400 (Appeal No. 2009-002201);
(2) 10/676,926 (Appeal No. 2009-006844); (3) 10/680,591(Appeal No.
2009-008916); (4) 10/702,262 (Appeal No. 2009-009356); (5) 10/703,023
(Appeal No. 2009-010281); and (6) 11/040,163 (Appeal No. 2010-009424).
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

3
App. Br. 3; Supp. App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 2.2 Appellant, however, notes that
prosecution was reopened in the ‘262 application. App. Br. 3; Supp. App.
Br. 2.
We previously decided two of these appeals (09/812,400 and
10/676,926). See Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-002201, 2009 WL 3793386
(BPAI 2009) (non-precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s anticipation and
obviousness rejections); see also Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-006844, 2010
WL 4917799 (BPAI 2010) (non-precedential) (same).

CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gerzon US 5,555,306 Sept. 10, 1996
Okamura US 5,652,797 July 29, 1997
Levine US 5,848,164 Dec. 8, 1998
(filed Apr. 30, 1996)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11-27, 29, 32-34, and 36-50
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine and Okamura.
Ans. 3-5.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 28, 30, 31, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine, Okamura, and Gerzon.
Ans. 6.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 8,
2008 (supplemented September 8, 2008); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
October 21, 2008; and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 22, 2008.
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

4
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER LEVINE AND OKAMURA
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Levine
discloses a system for enriching audio signal timbre with every recited
feature except for “providing distortion,” but cites Okamura to cure this
deficiency in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-5,
7-9.
Appellant makes three principal arguments, namely that (1) Levine
does not teach plural audio signal delays receive (a) the same incoming
audio signal, and (b) a high resonance positive feedback signal (App. Br. 11-
12; Reply Br. 3-4); (2) Levine does not teach that each delay has a distinct
selectable delay time, let alone a selectable delay time corresponding to a
period of a desired resonant frequency (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6-8); and
(3) Okamura fails to introduce distortion into the combined signal after the
combined signal reaches a predetermined threshold (App. Br. 14; Reply Br.
8-9) as claimed. The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Levine and Okamura collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) plural audio signal delays receive signal inputs comprising (a) the
same incoming audio signal, and (b) a high resonance positive feedback
signal;
(2) each delay includes a distinct selectable delay time corresponding
to a period of a desired resonant frequency; and
(3) introducing distortion into the combined signal after the combined
signal reaches a predetermined threshold?
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Levine’s system 100 processes audio data on a subband-by-
subband basis to produce audio effects equivalent to those produced by post-
processing a decompressed fullband audio signal. Levine, Abstract; col. 1,
ll. 4-10; col. 3, ll. 17-21; Fig. 1.
2. Levine’s system includes an analysis filter bank 138 that processes
in real time a fullband fullrate audio signal received from a real-time audio
source or disk files 140. The analysis filter bank (1) compresses; (2)
encodes; and (3) splits the fullband fullrate audio signal into 32 equally-
spaced subbands (116-1 to 116-32) of “critically sampled compressed audio
data” 116, such that the total amount of subband data equals the amount of
data before its division into subband data. Levine, col. 3, ll. 35-58; col. 4, ll.
42-53; Figs. 1-2.
3. Each subband carries critically-sampled data for a distinct
frequency range, with the 32 subbands covering the frequency range from 0
to 22.05 kHz (i.e., each subband carries data for a frequency range of about
689 Hz). Levine, col. 3, ll. 44-49; Figs. 1-2.
4. One or more customized subband effects filters (128-1 to 128-32)
can be applied to one or more subbands (116-1 to 116-32). The effects
filters are customized by (1) using selected stored prototype subband effects
filters 118 as a base template, and (2) executing a subband filter
customization procedure 132 to adjust associated parameters to produce the
desired effect. Levine, col. 3, l. 59 – col. 4, l. 13; col. 4, ll. 54-56; Figs. 1-
6C.

Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

6
5. The set of stored prototype subband effects filters produce the
following effects: (1) echo 120 via echo filter 300 (Fig. 3); (2) flanging via
flange filter 400 (Fig. 4); (3) chorus 124 via chorus effect filter 500 (Fig. 5);
and (4) reverberation 126 via reverberation effect filter 600 (Figs. 6A-C).
Levine, col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 6; col. 3, ll. 59-65; Figs. 3-6C.
6. Customizable parameters for each selected prototype subband
effects filter include (1) a delay line length 301, 401, 501-1 to 501-3, 601-1
to 601-2; (2) one or more feedback scalars 302, 402; and (3) one or more
feedforward scalars 403, 502, 602. To create a customized subband flange
effect audio filter, for example, the sound system designer can adjust (1)
feedfoward gain scalar 403; (2) feedback gain scalar 402; and (3) delay
length 401. Levine, col. 4, ll. 13-25; Figs. 3-6C.
7. One or more customized subband effects filters can be grouped
together to form a user-defined group of such filters to process the entire
range of compressed audio subband data. Levine, col. 4, ll. 27-31.
8. Levine notes an example where if an echo effect having a delay
line length of 300 msec is desired, a subband filter with the design shown in
Figure 3 can be placed on each subband, where the customized echo effect
filter has the same feedback scalars and a 9.4 msec delay line length.
Levine, col. 5, ll. 44-50; Figs. 2-3.
9. Each of the 32 subbands can be processed separately and
independently, including placing different customized subband effects filters
on different frequency regions. For example, the user can process certain
frequencies for an input bass signal, yet not alter its lowest frequencies (e.g.,
the fundamental and first few harmonics). Levine, col. 6, l. 59 – col. 7, l. 18;
Fig. 2.
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

7
10. Okamura’s system imparts a variety of sound effects to musical
tones. In Figure 24, the distortion-with-equalizer effect (“DIST + EQ”) is
selected for sound effect “EF3.” Okamura, Abstract; col. 22, ll. 29-34; Fig.
24.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. First, claim 1 requires each
audio signal delay to recite receive signal inputs comprising (a) the same
incoming audio signal (i.e., “said incoming audio signal”), and (b) a high
resonance positive feedback signal. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-4), based on the scope and breadth of
the claim language, we see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 7) that
each delay-based customized effects filter in Levine would receive a signal
input comprising the same incoming audio signal 140—at least in part. See
FF 2-4. Although Levine’s analysis filter bank splits the incoming audio
signal into 32 equally-spaced subbands (FF 2-3), nothing in claim 1
precludes each delay-based customized effects filter receiving a component
(i.e., subband) of the incoming audio signal 140—even if compressed and
encoded. While these signal components have a limited bandwidth, they
nonetheless constitute signal inputs comprising part of incoming audio
signal—albeit compressed and encoded. See FF 2-3. And nothing in the
claim precludes the Examiner’s reliance on the feedback gain scalar 402 in
Levine’s flange filter of Figure 4 for least suggesting the recited high
resonance positive feedback signal, particularly since (1) the flange filter
includes an adjustable delay element (FF 6), and (2) Levine at least suggests
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

8
placing similar such filters (and their associated adjustable delays) on every
subband. See FF 4-9. That these delay times are independently adjustable
means that they would be distinct for each subband. See id. While Levine
cites a particular example where every subband has the same feedback and
delay settings as Appellant indicates (App. Br. 14; FF 8), Levine
nevertheless provides distinct, independently-adjustable filters (with
adjustable delay times) for each subband (FF 9).
We also see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 8) that these
adjustable delay times would at least correspond to a period of a desired
resonant frequency as claimed. The term “resonance” is defined, in
pertinent part, as “[t]he condition existing in a body when the frequency of
an applied body equals the natural frequency of the body.”3 Given this
definition, we see no reason why the various adjustable delay times would
not at least suggest a correspondence to a period of a desired resonant
frequency as claimed, particularly since Levine teaches processing certain
harmonic frequencies of an input musical instrument (bass) signal, yet
leaving other frequencies unprocessed to achieve the desired sound
enhancement effect. FF 9.
But we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 8-9) that
Okamura does not teach nor suggest introducing distortion into the
combined signal after the combined signal reaches a predetermined
threshold as claimed. Nor has the Examiner shown that the combined
Levine/Okamura system would even be capable of this conditional distortion
inclusion. Although Okamura imparts a distortion-with-equalizer effect to a

3 Neil Sclater & John Markus, McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary, 6th ed.
(1997), at 303.
Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

9
combined signal in connection with a selected sound effect (FF 10), that
hardly means that this distortion would be introduced after the combined
signal reaches a predetermined threshold—a crucial qualifier in claim 1.
The Examiner’s position that this threshold “would be the point that the
combined signal changes based on the added effect” (Ans. 9) is unavailing.
Not only does the Examiner fail to indicate how this “threshold” is
predetermined, such a “threshold” would already include the distortion
added to combined signal. But claim 1 requires that the distortion not be
added until after the combined signal—without the distortion—reaches a
predetermined threshold. This feature is simply not taught or suggested by
the cited prior art.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 26 which recites commensurate
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2, 4, 7-9, 11-25, 27, 29, 32-34, and 36-
50 for similar reasons.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER LEVINE, OKAMURA, AND GERZON
Since the Examiner has not shown that the cited prior art cures the
deficiencies noted above regarding the independent claims, we will not
sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 28, 30, 31,
and 35 (Ans. 6) for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-50 under § 103.

Appeal 2009-008141
Application 10/702,415

10
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-50 is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

Lester F. Ludwig
P.O. Box 128
Belmont, CA 94002