Ex Parte Miner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 7, 2004

09014871 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 7, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NADINE E. MINER
and
THOMAS P. CAUDELL
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application 09/014,871
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 3, 6, 8 through 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 24 and 27
through 34.
The disclosed invention relates to a method for generating a
synthesized sound.
Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
Claim 1. A method for generating a synthesized sound,
comprising:
a) obtaining a wavelet representation of a first sound
according to:
i) determining a characteristic shape of the first
sound by inspecting the first sound at each of a plurality of
scales;
ii) comparing the characteristic shape with each of a
plurality of wavelet types;
iii) selecting the wavelet type from the plurality of
wavelet types that most closely matches the characteristic shape;
iv) obtaining a wavelet representation of the first
sound using a wavelet transform of the first sound based on the
selected wavelet type;
b) obtaining a plurality of parameters which characterize
the wavelet representation; and
c) generating the synthesized sound by varying at least some
of the plurality of parameters.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Faria et al. (Faria), “Wavelets in music analysis and synthesis:
timbres analysis and perspectives,” Proceedings of the SPIE-
International Society for Optical Engineering, Vol. 2825, Part 2,
pages 950-961, Denver, Colorado, Aug. 6-9, 1996.
Evangelista, “Pitch-synchronous wavelet representations of speech
and music signals,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
Vol. 41, pages 3313-3330, Dec. 1993.
Kudumakis et al. (Kudumakis), “Synthesis of Audio Signals Using
the Wavelet Transform,” IEEE, pages 1 through 5, 1993.
Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
3
Claims 1 through 3, 8 through 13, 17, 19, 20, 27 and 29
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Faria.
Claims 6, 16, 28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Faria in view of Kudumakis.
Claims 22 through 24, 31 and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Faria in view
Evangelista.
Claims 32 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Faria in view of Kudumakis and
Evangelista.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 15) and the
answer (paper number 16) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 6, 8 through 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 24 and 27 through
34.
Appellants argue (brief, page 7) that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1 and 12
because “there is no teaching in Faria of determination of a
Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
4
characteristic shape of a sound, comparing the characteristic
shape with wavelet types, and selecting a wavelet type based on
the match with the characteristic shape.” With respect to claims
1 and 17, appellants argue (brief, page 8) that these claims “are
expressly limited to steps for varying or manipulating the
coefficients or parameters which characterize a wavelet
representation in order to generate a synthesized sound,” and
that “Faria does not teach or suggest such modification.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. As the title of the
Faria publication indicates, wavelet processing is used in music
analysis and synthesis. During such processing, Faria is even
concerned with perceptual factors (pages 951, 952 and 959),
parameters (pages 953 and 959) and a wavelet transform
(page 955). Notwithstanding such teachings in Faria, the wavelet
synthesis in this publication is performed on the wavelet itself,
and not on a selected wavelet type after a comparison operation
(claims 1 and 12) or on a representation of the wavelet
(claims 1, 12 and 17). Thus, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 8 through 13, 17, 19, 20, 27 and 29 is
reversed because Faria neither teaches nor would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the method steps outlined in
these claims. The obviousness rejections of claims 6, 16, 22
Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
5
through 24, 28 and 30 through 34 are likewise reversed because
the teachings of Evangelista and Kudumakis do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Faria.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3,
6, 8 through 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 24 and 27 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
6
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
Patent & Licensing Center
P.O. Box 4800
MS 0161
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0161