Ex Parte Zeng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12248506 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
12/248,506 10/09/2008 Hanks Zeng 3875.2760001 9959
49579 7590 03/29/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MCCORD, PAUL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANKS ZENG, NELSON SOLLENBERGER,
RADHAKRISHNAN KUZHIPATT, MICHAEL LIU,
TAIYI CHENG, and HONG WEI KONG,
Appeal 2015-005191
Application 12/248,506
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—25. Claims 26 and 27 are
withdrawn from consideration due to a restriction requirement. See Final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a filter in a hardware audio
CODEC being configured based on power consumption and a frequency
response of an active output device to which the filter is communicatively
coupled. See Abstract.
Appeal 2015-005191
Application 12/248,506
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for signal processing, the method comprising:
in a hardware audio CODEC comprising a filter communicatively
coupled to one or more audio output devices:
determining a frequency response of an active one of said
one or more audio output devices;
configuring said filter based on a power consumption of
said filter and based on said determined frequency response of said
active one of said one or more audio output devices, including
configuring coefficients of said filter based on said active one of said
one or more audio output devices; and
filtering an audio signal via said configured filter,
wherein said filter includes a plurality of filter stages, and
wherein said coefficients correspond to weighting values
applied to said audio signal within said plurality of filter stages.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claim 1—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arad (US 2006/0287009 Al, Dec. 21, 2006), Heikkila
(US 2003/0174780 Al, Sept. 18, 2003), and Acero (US 2007/0088544 Al,
Apr. 19, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Arad, Heikkila, and Acero
collectively teach or suggest determining a frequency response, as set forth
in claim 1?
Appellants contend “Heikkila is directed to adjusting the frequency of
a data signal based on channel conditions, which is entirely unrelated to
configuring components of hardware audio CODEC based on a determined
frequency response of an active audio output device to perform audio
filtering” (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend that “Heikkila is not
2
Appeal 2015-005191
Application 12/248,506
analogous art, and is therefore improper in the obviousness rejection . . .
Heikkila is not in the same field of endeavor ... is of data signals ... is not
‘reasonably pertinent to the problem faced’” (App. Br. 11). Appellants also
contend that “Heikkila does not ‘determin[e] a frequency response of an
active one of said one or more audio output devices’ . . . but rather
determines ‘the frequency response of the channel’” (App. Br. 11). Finally,
Appellants contend that “Acero simply discloses in paragraphs [0040] —
[0042] that filter coefficients can be calculated. Acero fails to provide where
or how such filter coefficients are applied to the audio signal. . . . within
said plurality of filter stages” (App. Br. 13).
In response, the Examiner finds that it is the combined teachings of
Heikkila, Arad, and Acero which teaches or suggest that argued limitations.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Wikipedia allows that the frequency
response of a system can be measured by simply measuring the output of a
system” (Ans. 8); “the teachings of Heikkila [are] relevant to the instant
application in as much as Heikkila teaches an adaptive and iterative
approach to maximizing power consumption . . . based upon a frequency
response thereof’ {id. at 8—9);
the primary reference Arad teaches a hardware audio
codec . . . comprising a multi stage filter . . . turned on or off
based upon a signal to noise ratio comparison of amplifier
coefficients . . . [using] measurements of active outputs at
various points in the signal chain,
{id. at 9—10); “Heikkila discusses the measurement and iteration of
frequency response data ... in the configuring of a channel. . . Heikkila
teaches assignment of coefficients” {id. at 10); and Acero teaches
3
Appeal 2015-005191
Application 12/248,506
“calibrating filter coefficients in time frames and sub-bands based on and
thereby weighting the signals generated” {id.).
Thus, Appellants’ argument against Heikkila separately from Arad
and Acero (or against Acero separately from Arad and Heikkila) does not
persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26
(CCPA 1981). Here, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what
the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness. For example, the Examiner is not relying
on Heikkila to teach determining a frequency response of an active one of
said one or more audio output devices, but rather Arad’s teachings
combined with Wikipedia’s definition of frequency response of an active
device {see Final Act. 4—5, Ans. 9—10). Additionally, the Examiner is not
relying on Acero to teach a plurality of filter stages, but rather Arad {see
Final Act. 4—5).
Regarding Appellants’ contention that Heikkila is non-analogous art
{see App. Br. 11), we agree with the Examiner that “Heikkila [is] relevant to
the instant application,” i.e., is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved {see Ans. 8—9).
“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health and
4
Appeal 2015-005191
Application 12/248,506
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379—80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations and
quotations omitted). Here, the Examiner has shown that Heikkila teaches an
adaptive and iterative approach to maximizing power consumption in a
transmission channel based upon a frequency response thereof (see Ans. 8—
9) and we find that this endeavor would have commended itself to
Appellants’ attention in considering how to determine frequency response.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 9 and 17 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants
do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See App. Br.
9—13. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
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
5