Ex Parte Miet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13511880 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/511,880 05/24/2012 Gilles Miet 322672US 4405
102469 7590 02/01/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GILLES MIET
Appeal 2017-007429
Application 13/511,88c1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 31—48 and 53-60. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nvidia Corporation.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007429
Application 13/511,880
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to signal processing, and in
particular to processing of an audio signal in a communications network.”
Spec. 1,11. 5-6. Claim 31 is illustrative of subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with emphasis added to the disputed limitation.
31. A method of processing an audio signal in a
communications network, the method comprising:
receiving, at a speech buffer, a first portion of the audio
signal over the network from a base station of the network, the
speech buffer being configured to store and subsequently output
the first portion of the audio signal;
determining the presence of an interruption to the
received audio signal, the interruption being such that a
subsequent portion of the audio signal which is intended to be
output from the speech buffer immediately following the output
of the first portion is not stored in the speech buffer at the time
that the subsequent portion is intended to be output from the
speech buffer;
in the event that the presence of the interruption has been
determined, appending a second portion of the audio signal to
the first portion in such a way as to form an output audio signal
having no signal discontinuities in the time domain, the second
portion having a predetermined duration and having a pitch
matching that of the first portion over the predetermined
duration, wherein the second portion is stored in the speech
buffer or a recovery buffer and is either obtained entirely from
the speech buffer, from the speech buffer and the recovery
buffer or entirely from the recovery buffer;
applying a fade out envelope to the second portion to
gradually reduce the amplitude of the second portion over the
predetermined duration; and
outputting the output audio signal.
2
Appeal 2017-007429
Application 13/511,880
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 31—41, 43^18, 53, 54, and 57-60
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kapilow (US
2005/0240402 Al; published Oct. 27, 2005).
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kapilow and Taniguchi (US
5,115,469; issued May 19, 1992).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 55 and 56 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kapilow and Mayer
(US 6,556,844 Bl; issued Apr. 29, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree
with Appellant’s arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own
the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the
June 17, 2016 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2-19) and (2) the
February 7, 2017 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2-5). We highlight and
address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
Appellant argues that Kapilow fails to disclose “appending a second
portion of the audio signal to the first portion in such a way as to form an
output audio signal having no signal discontinuities in the time domain,” as
recited in independent claim 31 and recited in similar scope in independent
claims 58-60. Br. 8-13. More specifically, Appellant argues that Kapilow
fails to disclose “the second portion of the audio signal because unlike the
3
Appeal 2017-007429
Application 13/511,880
claimed second portion, the generated synthetic [signal] is not a portion of
the same audio signal from which the first portion came. Instead, the
synthetic signal is a new signal that is generated based on the history of
buffer.” Br. 9 (citing Kapilow ]fl[ 33-35); see also Br. 10-13 (repeating
same argument for independent claims 58-60).
The Examiner finds that Kapilow discloses the disputed limitation.
Ans. 3; Final Act. 6-7. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Kapilow
discloses “generat[ing] the second portion using delayed versions of
previous portions of the audio signal.” Ans. 3 (citing Kapilow 33, 35).
The Examiner finds that “Kapilow further discloses that the history buffer is
comprised of data from earlier in the audio signal” that is used to generate
the synthetic signal (i.e., a second portion of the audio signal). Ans. 3
(quoting Kapilow ^] 35 (“[H]istory buffer 240 and the delay module 250
blocks signify that the saved history is used by the FEC [Frame Erasure
Concealment] process to generate the synthetic signal.”)).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Kapilow, contrary to Appellant’s contention, discloses that the synthetic
signal is generated from the same audio signal from which the first portion
came — the synthetic signal is a version of a previous portion(s) of the audio
signal. Kapilow ^ 33, 35. This finding is underscored by Kapilow’s more
detailed disclosure of how the synthetic signal is generated. See Kapilow
38-39 (disclosing that the synthetic signal can be a delayed and/or
attenuated version of an earlier received frame or frames stored in the
history buffer). We note that Appellant appears to over-emphasize the term
“synthetic” to the extent that Appellant relies on it to argue that the synthetic
signal is not generated from the same audio signal from which the first
4
Appeal 2017-007429
Application 13/511,880
portion came. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“These
elements must be arranged as in the claim under review but this is not an
‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 31 and 58-60, as well as claims 32—41, 43^48, 53, 54,
and 57, as Appellant did not provide separate arguments for their
patentability. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of (i) claim
42 and (ii) claims 55 and 56, as Appellant relies on the arguments above,
which were unavailing, directed to the independent claims.
DECISION2
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 31—48 and 53-60.
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).
AFFIRMED
2 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider
whether our precedential decision regarding conditional steps is relevant to
claim 31, including with respect to the step that begins “in the event that the
presence of the interruption has been determined, appending a second
portion of the audio signal.” See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847,
2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).
5