Ex Parte Mani et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14485482 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/485,482 09/12/2014
125968 7590 06/28/2019
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Senthil Kumar Mani
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.
070852.000051 3270
EXAMINER
LUO, ANTHONY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
vorys _ docketing@cardinal_ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SENTHIL KUMAR MANI and PRASAD PURAM
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 1. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A typical packet-based voice communication system involves
digitizing, compressing, and packetizing a sender's voice data and then
transmitting the voice data packet over an internet protocol (IP) network to a
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
September 1, 2017; the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed February 12, 2018;
the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed May 30, 2018; and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed July 30, 2018.
2 The real party in interest is listed as Imagination Technologies Limited.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
receiver. Spec. 1:5-10. According to the Specification, packet loss is a
prominent problem impairing the packet-based voice communication
system's quality of service. Id. 1: 14--17. To mitigate packet loss,
redundancies can be introduced in the transmission so that the receiver can
regenerate the lost packets from the redundant data. Id. 1 :21-22.
Appellants' invention relates to voice data transmission with adaptive
redundancy. Id. at 2:9. Received voice data is encoded as a voice data
payload. If a portion of received voice data is classified as unvoiced, then
the voice data payload is added to previous voice data payloads for inclusion
as a redundant payload in subsequent voice data packets. Id. at 2:9-18.
"This means that, for a subsequent packet, th[ e] voice data payload will be
available to be packed as redundant data." Id. at 18:1-2.
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for transmitting voice data packets with
redundancy in a network, the method comprising:
receiving voice data and encoding the voice data as a voice
data payload;
packetizing the voice data payload to generate a voice data
packet including the voice data payload, the voice data packet
further including at least one redundant payload selected from a
set of previous voice data payloads;
determining whether the encoded voice data payload is a
critical payload or non-critical payload by classifying the
received voice data as voiced or unvoiced, wherein, if at least a
portion of the voice data is classified as unvoiced, the encoded
voice data payload is determined to be a critical payload;
adding the encoded voice data payload to the set of
previous voice data payloads for inclusion as a redundant
payload in subsequent voice data packets if the encoded voice
data payload is determined to be a critical payload; and
2
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
forwarding the voice data packet for transmission over the
network.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ZHENG AND RAJENDRAN
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2010/0312552 Al, published Dec. 9,
2010) and Rajendran (US 2008/0027717 Al, published Jan. 31, 2008).
Final Act. 4--7.
Appellants argue claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-18, and 20 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Zheng teaches
many of its limitations, including encoding voice data as a voice data
payload. See Final Act. 4 ( citing element 106 in Zheng, Fig. 1 ). The
Examiner also finds that Zheng teaches adding the encoded voice data
payload to a set of previous voice data payloads for inclusion as a redundant
payload if a speech frame is determined to be a critical payload. See id.
( citing Zheng ,r,r 39--40); see also Ans. 2. According to the Examiner,
Zheng does not explicitly disclose the unvoiced data is critical and thus, the
rejection additionally turns to Rajendran to teach "the unvoiced data payload
is a critical payload." Ans. 3 ( citing Raj endran ,r 13 5); see id. at 2-3 ( citing
Zheng ,r 42). The Examiner proposes to combine Rajendran's teaching with
Zheng to arrive at the claimed invention. See Final Act. 4--5; see Ans. 2-3.
Appellants contend Zheng teaches away from "classifying unvoiced
data as critical and transmitted redundantly." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants
3
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
further contend Zheng does not teach determining an encoded voice data
payload to be a critical payload if at least a portion of the voice data is
classified as unvoiced because "Zheng actually teaches the opposite, i.e.,
that speech data are critical, such that ... unvoiced data would be
determined to be non-critical." Id. For this reason, Appellants argue one
skilled in the art would not have been motivated to include Rajendran's
teaching, which would allegedly change Zheng's operation. Id. at 7-9.
Appellants further contend Raj endran does not teach or suggest what the
Examiner alleges (id. at 8-9), including "because unvoiced speech is
important to speech comprehension, it means the unvoiced data is critical"
(id. at 9 ( quoting Final Act. 5) ).
ISSUES
I. Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
determining Zheng and Rajendran collectively would have taught or
suggested:
(A) "determining whether the voice data payload is a critical payload
or noncritical payload by classifying the received voice data as voiced or
unvoiced" and
(B) "if at least a portion of the voice data is classified as unvoiced,
the voice data payload is determined to be a critical payload"?
II. Does combining Rajendran's teaching with Zheng teach away
from "classifying the received voice data as ... unvoiced" and "if ... a
portion of the voice data is classified as unvoiced, the encoded voice data
payload is determined to be a critical payload"?
4
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1 AND 7-9
I.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
A.
Appellants assert Zheng fails to teach "determining whether the voice
data payload is a critical payload or noncritical payload by classifying the
received voice data as voiced or unvoiced." See Appeal Br. 7 ( citing Zheng
,r 42). This argument is unavailing.
Zheng teaches receiving voice communications or data, transmitting
the data as frames, and encoding the frames as a voice data payload. See
Zheng ,r,r 26-27, 29, Fig. 1 (elements 110, 106). Zheng discloses exemplary
encoders ( e.g., 206 or 306) that examine speech frames and an exemplary
FEC module 220 (located at encoder 206's end) performing a "Critical
Frame Determination" step. See id. ,r,r 23, 32-33, 37-39, Figs. 2-3. As an
example, Zheng teaches determining whether a speech frame that is part of
the encoded payload is a critical frame based on information within the
given frame and one or more adjacent speech frames. See id.; see also id.
,r 40, cited in both Final Act. 4 and Ans. 2.
Zheng further explains an embodiment where this critical frame
determination can be based on "a speech mode 434" of the given frame and
adjacent frames, and "[ e ]xamples of speech mode may include voiced,
unvoiced, silence, transient, voiced onset, etc." Zheng ,r 42 ( emphasis
added), cited in Ans. 2. Zheng, then, at least suggests determining whether
an encoded voice data payload is critical or non-critical by classifying the
5
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
speech frame ( e.g., "the received voice data") as voiced or unvoiced speech
mode.
Appellants argue that Zheng only provides an example of a voice on-
set frame being more critical than a steady-voice frame. Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 2. We disagree. Appellants' arguments narrowly focus on only the
voice example or a CELP/NELP example (see Appeal Br. 8; see Reply Br.
2) and do not address Zheng's further teachings noted by the Examiner (see
Ans. 2) to examine if a frame/data is classified as voice or unvoiced (see
Zheng ,r 42). As noted above, Zheng teaches various embodiments that
determine specific frames being critical, including those related to voiced or
unvoiced data as well as other modes. See id. Based on this teaching,
Zheng at least suggests a range of possible critical payloads, including
determining the encoded voice data payload is critical by classifying
received voice data ( e.g., a speech frame) as (1) voiced or (2) unvoiced as
recited. See Zheng
,r,r 17, 22, 40, 42; see In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Based on the record, Zheng at least suggests the disputed
"determining" step in claim 1.
B.
Claim 1 further recites "wherein, if at least a portion of the voice data
is classified as unvoiced, the encoded voice data payload is determined to be
a critical payload." Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added). This
disputed step is a conditional limitation similar to that discussed in Ex parte
Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *5, 7 (PTAB Apr. 28,
2016) (precedential) (holding that, in a method claim, a step reciting a
condition precedent does not need to be performed by the prior art if the
6
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
condition precedent is not met). See also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 21 l 1.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing
Schulhauser). Specifically, in the context of method claim 1, the condition
precedent of "the encoded voice data payload is determined to be a critical
payload" step need not be performed when no portion of the voice data is
classified as unvoiced. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
But, even if this "wherein" step were not a conditional limitation, we
find no error in the Examiner's findings that the references at least suggest
this disputed limitation. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 2-3. Notably, the Examiner
indicated (1) Zheng alone suggests or, alternatively, (2) Zheng in
combination with Rajendran suggests the "wherein" step. Ans. 2 (finding
"[ w ]hen Zheng discloses the speech data is critical, it could mean the
unvoiced data is critical") ( citing Zheng ,r,r 40, 42); Final Act. 5 (finding
Rajendran in combination with Zheng teaches this step). We highlight the
Examiner's alternative positions to note that Rajendran is technically
cumulative to Zheng in the context of the first, noted position taken by the
Examiner.
As discussed above, Zheng at least suggests determining the encoded
voice data payload is critical by classifying received voice data ( e.g., a given
speech frame) as (1) voiced speech mode or (2) unvoiced speech mode-the
latter suggesting the "wherein" step. See Zheng ,r,r 17, 22, 40, 42. In
addition, the Examiner turned to Rajendran to demonstrate that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have recognized unvoiced speech, which contains more
information/ data, is important to speech comprehension in the highband.
See Rajendran ,r 135. Contrary to Appellants' assertions (Appeal Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 2-3), Rajendran provides an additional reason why an artisan
7
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
would want to recognize such data as critical ( e.g., important in
comprehending speech in the highband) and even how an artisan would have
recognized unvoiced speech data ( e.g., data that includes more information).
See Ans. 3; see Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner has articulated a reason
with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined Zheng with Rajendran to determine if encoded voice data
payload is critical by classifying its received voice data as unvoiced. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Based on the record, Zheng alone or Zheng in combination with
Rajendran suggests the disputed "wherein" step.
II.
Appellants assert "Zheng ... teaches away from the concept of
treating unvoiced data as critical for packing redundantly." Appeal Br. 8;
see also id. at 7 (arguing Zheng teaches away from "classifying unvoiced
data as critical."). Appellants point to a finding in a prior Non-Final Action
to support their position. See id. ( contending Zheng admittedly teaches away
from the claimed invention) and Reply Br. 1-2 (both quoting October 28,
2016 Office action 3: 1---6). We are not persuaded of error.
First, Appellants appeal the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 in
the Final Action, mailed September 1, 2017, which does not include the
language in the prior Non-Final Action noted by Appellants. See generally
Final Act.; see 35 U.S.C. § 134(a); see In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("In reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal, the Board
must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument. . . . [T]he ultimate
determination of patentability is made on the entire record.").
8
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
Second, to the extent Appellants assert Zheng teaches away from
treating unvoiced data as critical for packing redundantly because Zheng
teaches the opposite of what is claimed (see Appeal Br. 8) or does not
disclose a recited limitation in claim 1 (see id. at 9), we disagree. As
discussed above, Zheng alone or Zheng in combination with Rajendran at
least suggests classifying unvoiced data as critical (e.g., important) for
redundancy purposes or for comprehending speech in the highband. Thus,
Zheng does not discourage an ordinarily skilled artisan from following its
own path, in the case of relying on Zheng alone, or the path set out in
Rajendran, in the case of the combined Zheng/Rajendran process. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting a reference teaches away
when an ordinarily skilled artisan, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference). Nor does
Zheng lead an artisan in a direction divergent from the path that was taken
by Appellants. See id. (further noting a reference teaches away when an
ordinarily skilled artisan, upon reading the reference, would be led in a
direction divergent from the path taken by applicant).
Lastly, Appellants further argue the combination of Zheng and
Rajendran would not have resulted in the limitation "adding the encoded
voice data payload to the set of previous voice data payloads for inclusion as
a redundant payload in subsequent voice data packets if the encoded voice
data payload is determined to be a critical payload,"3 in claim 1. Appeal Br.
3 Similarly to that discussed above for the "wherein" step, the "adding the
encoded voice data payload to the set of previous voice data payloads for
inclusion as a redundant payload in subsequent voice data packets" step in
claim 1 need not be performed when no portion of the data is classified as
unvoiced. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App'x).
9
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
9. Appellants merely repeat claim language with no further explanation why
the combination fails to teach these claimed features. See id. Thus, this
argument is not persuasive. Additionally, this argument does not address the
additionally noted reason discussed above for combining Rajendran with
Zheng. See Ans. 3; see Final Act. 5. In any event, and to the extent argued,
Zheng teaches or suggests the "adding" step, encompassing the redundant
payload recitation. See Zheng ,r,r 39--40, cited in Final Act. 4. Moreover,
Appellants' contention that Rajendran does not disclose transmitting
encoded frames over a network (Reply Br. 3) is unavailing, for such
contention does not address the reason why Rajendran was cited as
previously discussed. See Final Act. 5,
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7-9, which are not
separately argued from claim 1.
CLAIMS 11, 16-18, AND 20
We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claims 11 and 20. See Final Act. 6-7. Although not separately argued (see
generally Appeal Br.), we note claim 11 recites a system comprising
elements configured to perform limitations similar to those in claim 1 and
claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having
stored computer-executable instructions that cause a computer to perform
limitations similar to those in claim 1. Unlike method claim 1, an apparatus
claim and a product claim with structure that performs a function, which
only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for
performing the function should the condition occur. See Schulhauser, 2016
WL 6277792, at *7. As such, we construe claims 11 and 20 differently from
10
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
claim 1. However, for reasons similar to those discussed above when
addressing claim 1, we conclude Zheng alone or in combination with
Rajendran would have rendered claims 11 and 20 obvious.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 11, independent claim 20, and dependent claims
16-18, which are not separately argued from claim 11.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zheng, Rajendran, and LeBlanc (US 7,525,918 B2,
published Apr. 28, 2009). Final Act. 7-8. Claims 3, 4, and 13 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Rajendran, and
Chong-White (US 7,065,485 Bl, published June 20, 2006). Id. at 9-10.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zheng, Rajendran, Chong-White, and Li (US 2011/0167061 Al,
published July 7, 2011 ). Id. at 10-11. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Rajendran, Chong-
White, and Jeong (US 2006/0173673 Al, published Aug. 3, 2006). Id. at
11-12.
Appellants do not separately argue these rejections and claims. See
generally Appeal Br. For reasons similar to those previously addressed, we
sustain the remaining rejections.
11
Appeal2018-007950
Application 14/485,482
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
12