Ex Parte Nagel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2016

12992051 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2016)

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.
12/992,051 06/23/2011 Frederik Nagel 110971-8548.US01 4276
22862 7590 12/05/2016
FNN PATFNT TtROTTP
EXAMINER
c/o Perkins Coie LLP ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2016 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):
patentprocurement @perkinscoie. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERIK NAGEL, MAX NEUENDORK,
NIKOLAUS RETTELBACH, JEREMIE LECOMTE,
MARKUS MULTRUS, BERNHARD GRILL, and SASCHA DISCH
Appeal 2016-000940
Application 12/992,051
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—9, and 12—18, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
1 Claims 5, 10, 11 are not before us, as they are objected to for being
dependent from a rejected independent claim, but are allowable if rewritten
in independent form. See Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2016-000940
Application 12/992,051
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
generating a representation of a bandwidth-extended signal on the basis of
an input signal representation. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus for generating a representation of a
bandwidth-extended signal on the basis of an input signal
representation, the apparatus comprising:
a phase vocoder configured to acquire values of a
spectral domain representation of a first patch of the bandwidth-
extended signal on the basis of the input signal representation;
and
a value copier configured to copy a set of values of the
spectral domain representation of the first patch, which values
are provided by the phase vocoder, to acquire a set of values of
a spectral domain representation of a second patch, wherein the
second patch is associated with higher frequencies than the first
patch;
wherein the apparatus is configured to acquire the
representation of the bandwidth-extended signal using the
values of the spectral domain representation of the first patch
and the values of the spectral domain representation of the
second patch; and
wherein the apparatus is implemented using a hardware
apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a
hardware apparatus and a computer.
Reference and Rejection2
Claims 1—4, 6—9, and 12—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (b) as being anticipated by Liljeryd (US 2004/0125878 Al; published
July 1, 2004).
2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-000940
Application 12/992,051
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Liljeryd discloses “<2 phase
vocoder configured to acquire values of a spectral domain representation of
a first patch of the bandwidth-extended signal on the basis of the input
signal representation; and a value copier configured to copy a set of values
of the spectral domain representation of the first patch, which values are
provided by the phase vocoder, to acquire a set of values of a spectral
domain representation of a second patch, wherein the second patch is
associated with higher frequencies than the first patch,” as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 18—26; Reply Br. 2—
11.
The Examiner cites Liljeryd’s paragraphs 37, 76, and 119 for
disclosing the italicized claim limitation. See Final Act. 7.3 In response to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner additionally cites paragraphs 79 and
127—134. See Ans. 3—6. We have examined the cited Liljeryd’s paragraphs,
and they do not discuss “a phase vocoder configured to acquire values of a
spectral domain representation of a first patch of the bandwidth-extended
signal on the basis of the input signal representation; and a value copier
3 Initially, the Examiner cites numerous Liljeryd’s paragraphs for the
disputed claim limitations, and cites the same paragraphs for each claim
limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 4 (citing || 10—11; 18—25; 28; 32—43,
100-120, 123—137). However, the Examiner does not explain, and we do
not see, how those paragraphs disclose the disputed claim limitation.
3
Appeal 2016-000940
Application 12/992,051
configured to copy a set of values of the spectral domain representation of
the first patch, which values are provided by the phase vocoder, to acquire a
set of values of a spectral domain representation of a second patch, wherein
the second patch is associated with higher frequencies than the first patch,”
as required by claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 18—20; Reply Br. 2—
11. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the
cited Liljeryd portions disclose the disputed claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 13, 14, and 17 recites a claim limitation
that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims
13, 14, and 17. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 13, 14, and 17.
Independent claim 15 recites, among other things: “a value copier
configured to copy a set of values of the input signal representation, to
acquire a set of values of a spectral domain representation of a first patch,
wherein the first patch is associated with higher frequencies than the input
signal representation; and a phase vocoder configured to acquire values of a
spectral domain representation of a second patch of the bandwidth-extended
signal on the basis of the values of the spectral domain representation of the
first patch, wherein the second patch is associated with higher frequencies
than the first patch.” Claim 15. Claims 16 and 18 recite limitations that are
substantively similar to the above limitations of claim 15. The Examiner
applies the same findings made for claim 1 to those claims. See Ans. 5.
Similar to the discussions above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner has
4
Appeal 2016-000940
Application 12/992,051
not shown Liljeryd discloses the above limitations of claim 15 (and similarly
claims 16 and 18). Therefore, we revere the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 15, 16, and 18.
We also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent
claims 2-4, 6—9, and 12, which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—9, and
12-18.
REVERSED
5