Ex Parte Rogers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2012

11265437 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

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.
11/265,437 11/01/2005 Kevin Christopher Rogers 4860P3910 6572
45217 7590 12/31/2012
APPLE INC./BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEVIN CHRISTOPHER ROGERS
____________________

Appeal 2010-006858
Application 11/265,437
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. §134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Real Party in Interest is Apple Inc. Appeal Brief filed August 31,
2009 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2010-006858
Application 11/265,437

2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s claims relate to a system and method for providing
continuously variable time-frequency resolution in digital audio signal
processing through resampling. See generally Spec. ¶0013, ¶0035 and
Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:

1. A method of processing a digital audio signal
using continuously variable time frequency resolution, the
method comprising:

selecting a portion of an input digital audio signal,
wherein the selected portion comprises a number of input
samples;

resampling the selected portion of the input digital audio
signal;

generating a plurality of spectral characteristics
associated with the resampled portion of the input digital audio
signal;

generating a portion of an output digital audio signal
from the plurality of spectral characteristics; and

resampling the portion of the output digital audio signal
to generate a number of output samples,

wherein the number of output samples is substantially
equal to the number of input samples.

Appeal 2010-006858
Application 11/265,437

3

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Van Den Enden U.S. 2006/0273938 A1 Dec. 7, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-7 and 9-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
being anticipated by Van Den Enden. Ans. 3-6 and 8-14.
(2) Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Van Den Enden. Ans. 7 and 15-16.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that Van Den Enden discloses all of the limitations of Appellant’s
invention as recited in independent claim 1 and, similarly, in independent
claims 10 and 19. App. Br. 8-20. In particular, the issue turns on whether
Van Den Enden discloses “the number of output samples is substantially
equal to the number of input samples” as recited in independent claim 1
(App. Br. 8-15).

III. DISCUSSION
§102(e) Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-25
Appellant contends that Van Den Enden does not disclose several
limitations of the claimed invention, including “the number of output
samples is substantially equal to the number of input samples” as recited in
Appeal 2010-006858
Application 11/265,437

4

independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19
(App. Br. 8-15; Reply Br. 1-4).
In response thereto, the Examiner finds that Van Den Enden, ¶0034-
¶0035 and FIG. 3, discloses that an output signal, y[nT2], can be described
as follows: y[nT2]=[xnLT1] (or x[nMT1]). Ans. 8-9. According to the
Examiner, the relationship between the fixed/variable sample rate
increaser/decreaser shown in FIG. 3, demonstrates that “the number of
output samples in the signal y[nT2] is substantially equal to the number of
input samples according to the relationship of x[nLT1] = x[nMT1]”
(emphasis in the original). Id.
However, the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Van Den Enden
are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Based on the
description of the sample rate converter 12, shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, and
¶0033-¶0035 of Van Den Enden, we agree with Appellant that the
“relationship of x[nLT1] = x[nMT1]” does not demonstrate that “the number
of output samples in the signal y[nT2] is substantially equal to the number of
input samples” (emphasis in the original). Reply Br. 1-2.
FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, as reproduced below, are helpful to understand
Van Den Enden’s invention.

FIG. 1 shows a sample rate converter 12 in a form of a variable
sample rate decreaser (L).

Appeal 2010-006858
Application 11/265,437

5

FIG. 3 shows a sample rate converter 12 in a form of a variable
sample rate increaser (L).

In either embodiment shown in FIG. 1 or FIG. 3, the sample rate
converter of Van Den Enden is configured to switch operation from either
(1) an upsampling mode (i.e., the output sample rate is larger than the input
sample rate), to (2) a downsampling mode (i.e., the output sample rate is
smaller than the input sample rate), or vice versa, via varying the factor L
and a control signal (CTRL) applied to the variable sample rate decreaser 3
(see FIG. 1) or increaser 6 (FIG. 3). See ¶0007, ¶0009, and ¶0027 of Van
Den Enden. In view of such a disclosure, we agree with Appellant that: (1)
the sample rate converter of Van Den Enden does not operate as both
upsampling and downsampling at the same time (Reply Br. 3); (2) that the
output sample rates of Van Den Enden are either larger or smaller than the
input sample rates, but not equal to them (Reply Br. 3); and Van Den Enden
does not disclose or suggest resampling the portion of the output digital
audio signal to generate a number of output samples, “wherein the number of
output samples is substantially equal to the number of input samples,” as
recited in independent claim 1 and, similarly recited in independent claims
10 and 19. (Emphasis added.)
For the reasons set forth above and evidence of record, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and independent
claims 10 and 19, which contain similar limitations, as well as their
Appeal 2010-006858
Application 11/265,437

6

respective dependent claims. Because this issue is dispositive with respect
to claims 1-7 and 9-25, we need not reach Appellant’s other arguments
directed to additional limitations in independent claim 1 and dependent
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e), as well as dependent claims 8 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See App. Br. 15-25; Reply Br. 13-16.

V. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting (1) claims 1-7 and 9-25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Van Den Enden; and (2) claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Den Enden.

VI. ORDER
As such, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-25
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) and §103(a).

REVERSED

ke