Ex Parte Ludwig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2011

10703023 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LESTER F. LUDWIG
____________

Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S.
HOFF, 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 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention enriches timbre of audio signals by altering the
pitch of an incoming audio signal responsive to an amplitude tracking signal
corresponding to the measured amplitude of another incoming audio signal.
Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

2
See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A system for enriching timbre of audio signals by modulating an
applied time-delay, said system comprising:
first and second incoming audio signals;
an amplitude envelope follower generating an amplitude tracking
signal corresponding to a measured amplitude of said second incoming
audio signal; and
a controllable signal processor for altering pitch of said first incoming
audio signal responsive to said amplitude tracking signal to generate an
outgoing audio signal.

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) 10/702,415
(Appeal No. 2009-008141); and (6) 11/040,163 (Appeal No. 2010-009424).
App. Br. 4; Supp. App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 3.1 Appellant, however, notes that
prosecution was reopened in the ‘262 application. App. Br. 4; 2d Supp. Br.
2.
We previously decided four of these appeals (09/812,400, 10/676,926,
10/702,415, and 10/680,591). 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WL 3793386 (BPAI 2009) (non-precedential) (reversing the Examiner’s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2009-006844, 2010 WL 4917799 (BPAI 2010) (non-precedential) (same);

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
16, 2007 (supplemented May 15, 2007 (“1st Supp. Br.”) and September 8,
2008 (“2d Supp. Br.”)); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 12,
2007; and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 12, 2008.
Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

3
Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2009-008141, 2011 WL 486163 (BPAI 2011) (non-
precedential) (reversing Examiner’s obviousness rejections); Ex parte
Ludwig, No. 2009-008916, 2011 WL 794287 (BPAI 2011) (non-
precedential) (affirming the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in part).

CITED REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Iwamoto US 6,816,833 B1 Nov. 9, 2004
(filed Oct. 30, 1998)2

THE REJECTION3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Iwamoto. Ans. 3-5.

CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Iwamoto
discloses every recited feature including (1) first and second incoming audio
signals that are said to correspond to signals associated with microphone 1
and keyboard 5, respectively; (2) an “amplitude envelope follower” that is

2 Although Iwamoto’s filing date is after the present application’s
provisional application filing date of May 15, 1998, it is before the parent
application’s filing date of May 15, 1999. In any event, Appellant does not
dispute Iwamoto’s qualification as prior art under § 102.
3 Although Appellant alleges that the Examiner improperly entered new
grounds of rejection in the Answer (Reply Br. 2, 4, 10), such a grievance is a
petitionable matter—not an appealable matter—and is therefore not before
us. See MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues
pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the
Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a
question that should be decided by the Director on petition . . . .”).
Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

4
said to correspond to Iwamoto’s pitch controller 6; and (3) a “controllable
signal processor” which the Examiner likewise equates to Iwamoto’s pitch
controller 6 and, alternatively, pitch converters 3a, 3b. Ans. 3, 5-7.
According to the Examiner, by varying pitch, Iwamoto’s pitch controller
(i.e., “amplitude envelope follower”) not only generates an “amplitude
tracking signal” corresponding to a measured amplitude of the second
incoming audio signal, but also functions as a “controllable signal
processor” by altering pitch of the first audio signal responsive to the
amplitude tracking signal. Id.
Appellant argues that Iwamoto’s pitch controller does not generate an
amplitude tracking signal and is therefore not an “amplitude envelope
follower” since the pitch controller responds to the audio signal’s pitch—not
amplitude. App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 6-9, 13-16. Appellant adds that
Iwamoto likewise fails to disclose a “controllable signal processor” to alter
pitch of an incoming audio signal responsive to the amplitude tracking signal
as claimed. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 9. The issue before us, then, is as
follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Iwamoto discloses (1) an amplitude envelope follower generating an
amplitude tracking signal corresponding to a measured amplitude of the
second incoming audio signal, and (2) a controllable signal processor for
altering pitch of the first incoming audio signal responsive to the amplitude
tracking signal?

Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Iwamoto’s system adds harmony signals to audio signals. To this
end, the output of microphone 1 is sent to pitch detector 4 to detect the vocal
pitch of a vocalist’s voice. The detected vocal pitch is then sent to pitch
controller 6 along with a pitch specification from keyboard 5. Using these
signals, the pitch controller then controls pitch converters 3a, 3b to convert
or shift the vocal pitch signal to a desired pitch. The pitch-converted signals
are then sent to effectors 7a, 7b to produce harmony voice signals that are
mixed with the lead voice signal from the microphone via effector 2 to
produce harmonized voices. Iwamoto, col. 1, ll. 7-9; col. 5, l. 24 – col. 6, l.
57; Fig. 1. Iwamoto’s audio processing system in Figure 1 is reproduced
below:

Iwamoto’s audio processing system in Figure 1

2. In the vocoder harmony mode, when keyboard 5 is played as the
user speaks or sings into the microphone, the harmony pitch matching the
pitch corresponding to the operated key (key-on note) is added to the lead
voice to create the harmony voice signal. In the chordal harmony mode,
Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

6
pitch controller 6 adds the harmony pitch matching the pitch name
constituting the specified chord on the keyboard. Iwamoto, col. 7, l. 62 –
col. 8, l. 39; Figs. 2A-2B.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, (1) an amplitude envelope follower generating an amplitude tracking
signal corresponding to a measured amplitude of the second incoming audio
signal, and (2) a controllable signal processor for altering pitch of the first
incoming audio signal responsive to the amplitude tracking signal. We
emphasize the term “amplitude” here, for this appeal hinges on whether
Iwamoto’s pitch-conversion functionality includes these recited amplitude-
based functions. We find that they do not.
The Examiner equates the recited (1) first incoming audio signal to
that associated with microphone 1, and (2) the second incoming audio signal
as that associated with keyboard 5. Ans. 3, 7. Although Appellant disputes
the Examiner’s contention that the keyboard generates an audio signal (App.
Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 16-17), we need not reach that question since Iwamoto
falls short in other respects. That is, even assuming that Iwamoto’s
keyboard produces audio signals as the Examiner contends, we still fail to
see how the amplitude of such an audio signal—let alone a measured
amplitude—is used by the pitch controller to generate an amplitude tracking
signal as claimed.
Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

7
Fundamentally, any audio signal with a pitch has an amplitude.4
Indeed, this point is undisputed. Ans. 6; Reply Br. 5, 14. But as Appellant
indicates (Reply Br. 14-15), pitch and amplitude are independent physical
properties of sound waves. That is, a sound’s intensity depends on the
amplitude of the sound wave, but the pitch depends on the wave’s
frequency.5 Simply put, measuring or varying an audio signal’s pitch does
not mean that its amplitude is measured or varied: the two properties are
independent and distinct. Indeed, signals with varying pitch may have the
same amplitude.
It is this independence that undermines the basis for the Examiner’s
rejection. Notably, Iwamoto’s pitch controller uses (1) the detected pitch of
a vocalist’s voice from a microphone, and (2) a pitch specification from a
keyboard to control pitch converters to shift the vocal pitch signal to a
desired pitch. FF 1. Amplitude is simply not a factor in this conversion.
Even assuming that the keyboard pitch specification (i.e., the so-called
“second audio signal”) has an amplitude, it is simply not a factor in
Iwamoto’s pitch conversion functionality, let alone that such an amplitude is
measured to generate an amplitude tracking signal as claimed. Rather, it is

4 See Arthur Lalanne Kimball, A College Text-Book of Physics 197 (1911),
available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=QBc5AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA197&dq=so
und+wave+pitch+amplitude&hl=en&ei=fzC5TYXYDYHItwfQmszeBA&sa
=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBw#v=onep
age&q=sound%20wave%20pitch%20amplitude&f=false (“A musical sound
or tone has intensity, pitch, and quality or timbre, and each of these depends
upon a physical property of the sound wave. The intensity of a sound
depends upon the amplitude or the energy of the vibration, the pitch depends
on the frequency of the waves . . . .”)
5 Id.
Appeal 2009-010281
Application 10/703,023

8
the pitch represented by Iwamoto’s keyboard specification that is used as a
basis to convert the vocal signal from the microphone to another pitch. FF
1-2.
We therefore agree with Appellant that Iwamoto fails to disclose an
amplitude envelope follower generating an amplitude tracking signal
corresponding to a measured amplitude of the second incoming audio signal,
let alone a controllable signal processor for altering pitch of the first
incoming audio signal responsive to the amplitude tracking signal as
claimed.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 12 which recites commensurate
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

peb