Ex Parte Ratcliff et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2009

09918377 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DAVID D. RATCLIFF, NICHOLAS C. KLIEWER, and
RUSTIN W. ALLRED
_____________

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: January 12, 2009
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 19.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards an audio processing device which
has increased configurability without increasing the per-channel cost of the
Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

device. See page 2 of Appellants’ Specification. Claims 1 and 13 are
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. An audio processing machine comprising:
a plurality of audio inputs;
a plurality of audio outputs;
a plurality of audio filters;
a plurality of audio processing channels; and
a plurality of multiply switches configured to selectively mix
the plurality of audio inputs and the plurality of audio outputs such
that audio signals passing through the plurality of audio inputs are
processed via a plurality of audio filters selected from the plurality of
audio filters and a plurality of audio processing channels selected
from the plurality of audio processing channels to generate at least
one desired audio output signal.

13. An audio processing device having a plurality of multiply
switches operational to selectively mix a plurality of audio input
signals, a plurality of filtered audio signals generated therefrom the
plurality of audio input signals and a plurality of processed audio
signals generated therefrom the plurality of filtered audio signals to
generate at least one desired audio output signal.

REFERENCES

Cooper US 5,333,200 Jul. 26, 1994

Matheny US 6,148,314 Nov. 14, 2000

Poss US 6,151,179 Nov. 21, 2000

Tang US 6,298,370 B1 Oct. 2, 2001

Moorer US 6,904,152 B1 Jun. 7, 2005

2

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorer in view of Cooper. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 4 through 6 of the Answer1.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorer in view of Cooper, and
Matheny. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorer in view of Cooper and Poss
The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 7 and 8 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 10, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moorer in view of Cooper, Matheny,
and Tang. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 8 through 10 of the
Answer.
ISSUES

Appellants argue on pages 4 and 5 of the Brief2 that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 183 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error. Appellants reason that the claims require multiply switches to select

1 Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Answer, mailed August
27, 2007, for the respective details thereof.

2 Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief, received May 2,
2007, for the respective details thereof.
3 Appellants’ arguments group these claims together. Thus, in accordance
with 37 CFR § 41.33 (c)(1)(vii), we select claim 13 as representative of the
3

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

filters and to select processing channels, and that Moorer does not teach this
feature. Brief 4 and 5. Further, Appellants argue that the filters taught by
Cooper are for crosstalk cancellation between two microphones and that
Cooper does not teach filter selection. As such, Appellants argue one of
skill in the art would not consider applying Cooper to the teachings of
Moorer which uses multiple microphones. Brief 5.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments present us with two issues: have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Moorer and Cooper teaches the plurality of multiply switches as claimed,
and have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Moorer with filters as taught by Cooper.

Rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19
Appellants’ additional arguments directed to the rejections of 2, 3, 5,
8, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 17 on pages 5 and 6 of the Brief, merely state
“Appellant[s] relies upon the patentability of base claims 1, 7, and 13.”
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 3, 4,
5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 present us with the same issue as
discussed with respect to claims 1, 7, and 13.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to

group.
4

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.’” (Emphasis original). In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and
quotations omitted).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The mere existence of differences between
the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v.
Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is "whether the difference
between the prior art and the subject matter in question 'is a difference
sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in
the applicable art. . . .'" Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted) (finding
system for automatic record keeping of bank checks and deposits obvious in
view of nature of extensive use of data processing systems in the banking
industry and "closely analogous" patent for an automatic data processing
system used in a large business organization for keeping and updating
system transaction files for each department of the organization). To be
nonobvious, an improvement must be "more than the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740.
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized "the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art," id. at 1739, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be
determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that
"the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the 'functional approach' of
5

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248 [(1850)]." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed
principles based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." Id. The Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.

Id. at 1740. The operative question in this "functional approach" is thus,
"whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions." Id. at 1740.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ Specification describes using a multiplying circuit
element as a switch. By multiplying by zero (0) the path is shut off,
multiplying by one (1) the path is turned on, and multiplying by
negative one (-1) the path is turned on, but inverted (180 degrees out
of phase). Specification page 2, ll. 6-11.
6

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

2. Moorer teaches a technique for processing audio signals such that a
small number of signals can be used to create a sound field with
spatial harmonics that matches the original sound field. For example
a recording can be made from three microphones; the signals are
processed and used to create a five channel recording which can be
used to drive a speaker to recreate the original sound field. Abstract,
Figure 3, col. 5, ll. 40-65.
3. The inputs to Moorer’s device are input to an array of amplifiers (e.g.
items 21-25, 31-35, of Figure 3, 151-159 of Figure 7). The gains of
these amplifiers control the transfer function of the matrix and are set
by a control processor. Col. 6, ll. 11-34, col. 10, ll. 59-67.
4. Cooper teaches an audio processing circuit which provides improved
simulation of a listening environment. Abstract.
5. Cooper teaches that filters are used in the sound processing for many
purposes including elimination of crosstalk. See col. 7, ll. 38-42, col.
14, ll. 23-29.
ANALYSIS

First Issue.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Moorer and Cooper teaches the plurality
of multiply switches as claimed. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the
Examiner stated:
In this case the claims read "a plurality of multiply switches" is
"configured to selectively mix the plurality of audio inputs and the
plurality of audio outputs". The claims do not specify "a plurality of
audio filters" being "selected" by "a plurality of multiply switches"
nor the claims specify "a plurality of audio processing channels" being
7

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

"selected" by "a plurality of multiply switches" in the clause that
followed "such that".
In addition, the claims do not specify to change the "processing
channels". The claims state "audio signals passing through the
plurality of audio inputs are processed via . . . audio filters . . . and . . .
audio processing channels . . .” instead. As presented in the Office
Action, Moorer discloses detailed microphone matrix (129) of Figs. 5
and 6 in Fig. 7, in which the gains of the amplifiers 151-159 are
individually set by the control processor (133 or 141, FIG. 5 or 6)
through circuits (135). These gains define the transfer function of the
microphone matrix 129 (col. 10, lines 36-64). Thus the microphone
matrices of Moorer meet the selecting multiply switches of Claim 1.

Answer 11.

We concur with the Examiner’s claim analysis. As discussed above,
we select claim 13 as representative of the claims rejected over Moorer in
view of Cooper. Claim 13 does not recite that the multiply switches select
filters and processing channels as argued by Appellants on page 4 of the
Brief. Rather, claim 13 recites that the multiply switches “selectively mix a
plurality of input signals.” As identified above, the Examiner has found that
Moorer teaches a microphone matrix with amplifiers. We concur with the
Examiner’s findings. Facts 2 and 3. Further, the Examiner has identified
that Moorer’s microphone matrix meets the selecting multiply switches.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Moorer teaches the claimed multiply switches as Appellants’
arguments directed to the switches selecting filters and channels are directed
to limitations not recited in the claims. While Appellants’ Specification may
describe such functionality, we decline to import such functionality to the
8

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

claims. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Moorer and Cooper teach the
plurality of multiply switches as claimed.

Second Issue.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in combining the teachings of Moorer with filters as taught by Cooper. In
response to Appellants’ arguments the Examiner states:
Regarding Appellants' argument that "there is no filter selection
(by the multiply switches) as required by claim 1", please see § 8
above for response.
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made when facing design need of filtering audio input
signals to generate filtered audio signals would have been obvious to
have considered the audio filters taught by Cooper.

Answer 12. We concur with the Examiner’s reasoning. As discussed supra,
the claims do not recite a limitation directed to switching filters. Thus,
whether or not Cooper teaches switch selection is not germane to the
rejection of the claim. Further, Cooper teaches that filters are used in audio
processing. Fact 5. We consider that using filters in the audio processing
system of Moorer to be nothing more than using known elements to achieve
predictable results. Here it is known that filters are used to reduce unwanted
parts of a signal (e.g. in Cooper, the crosstalk component). We find that the
use of filters in the system of Moorer would yield the predictable result of
eliminating unwanted elements of the filtered signal. Accordingly,
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Moorer with filters as taught by Cooper.
9

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 13 (or claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and
18 grouped with claim 13).

Rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.
As discussed above, Appellants arguments directed to the rejections of
these claims rely upon the arguments directed to the rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 13. As discussed supra Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 13. Accordingly, we similarly
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16,
17, and 19.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

10

Appeal 2008-5319
Application 09/918,377

AFFIRMED

Eld

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
11