Ex parte Gampp

• Docket Number: Appeal 2023-003200,Application 16/582,165,Technology Center 2600
• Decision Date: 26 January 2024
• Parties: Ex parte PATRICK GAMPP, CHRISTIAN UHLE, JULIA HAVENSTEIN, OLIVER HELLMUTH, SASCHA DISCH, ANTONIOS KARAMPOURNIOTIS, JUERGEN HERRE, and PETER PROKEIN
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

1

Ex parte PATRICK GAMPP, CHRISTIAN UHLE, JULIA HAVENSTEIN, OLIVER HELLMUTH, SASCHA DISCH, ANTONIOS KARAMPOURNIOTIS, JUERGEN HERRE, and PETER PROKEIN

Appeal 2023-003200

Application 16/582,165

Technology Center 2600

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

January 26, 2024

FILING DATE: 09/25/2019

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and ADAM J. PYONTN Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

PYONTN, Administrative Patent Judge.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[1] appeals from the Examiner's rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Introduction

The Application is directed to "providing] for an enhancing identification of audio signals comprising a characteristic being obtained by artifact prone audio processing and/or to reduce such artifacts through application of dedicated post-processings on such audio material." Spec. 4:12-15. Claims 1-18 are pending; claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 22-29 (Claims App.). Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (some formatting and emphases added):

1. An apparatus for determining a predetermined characteristic indicating that an audio signal was subjected to an artificial bandwidth limitation processing, the apparatus comprising:

a spectrum calculator configured for receiving the audio signal and configured for calculating a spectrum from the audio signal;

a slope evaluator configured for evaluating a slope of the spectrum of the audio signal to acquire a slope evaluation result; and

a processor for providing a signal indicating that the audio signal comprises the predetermined characteristic dependent on an evaluation of the slope evaluation result,

wherein the processor is configured for providing the signal indicating that the audio signal comprises the predetermined characteristic by providing a respective signal indicating a result for the frame whether the frame comprises the predetermined characteristic for a plurality of frames of the audio signal for each of the plurality of frames,

wherein the processor is configured for acquiring a plurality of results for the corresponding plurality of frames indicating whether the corresponding frame comprises the predetermined characteristic based on the plurality of frames and to combine the plurality of results indicating whether the corresponding frame comprises the predetermined characteristic so as to acquire a combined result being valid for the plurality of frames; and

wherein the processor is configured for executing a median filtering using the plurality of results tor acquiring the combined result;

wherein the slope evaluator and the spectrum calculator is implemented in hardware and/or software.

Appeal Br. 22-23 (Claims App.).

The Examiner's Rejection

The Examiner maintains^[2] the following rejection:

Claim(s) Rejected

35 U.S.C. §

Reference(s)/Basis

Final Act

1-18

103

Eligibility

1-18

ANALYSIS

The Examiner determines claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because "the limitation(s) of'receiving the audio signal', 'calculating a spectrum', 'evaluating a slope', 'providing a signal', and 'executing a median filtering', as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components." Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds the claim does not integrate into a practical application, or recite significantly more than, a judicial exception because claim l's recitations of "[a]n apparatus," "spectrum calculator," "slope evaluator," "processor," and "hardware and/or software" reads to generalized computer components. Id; see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S 208, 217 (2014) (Describing the two-step framework "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts."); USPTO patent eligibility guidance found within Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2022 (Feb. 2023)), describing the three-step (Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B) framework for determining whether a claim satisfies the judicial criteria for subject matter eligibility.

Appellant argues claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception because "[t]here is no conceivable 'mental process' by which a human could listen to an audio signal and thereby calculate and write out a spectrum based on the information, etc." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues the claimed invention recites significantly more than a mere judicial exception, because the claimed "combination of a spectrum calculator, a slope evaluator and a processor . . . reflects an improvement to the technology of audio coding in multi-media applications, specifically to enhancing identification of audio signals having artifacts in order to facilitate reduction of such artifacts." Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further contends the use of generalized computer components "does not detract from the improvement to the technology of audio coding provided by the claimed combination." Appeal Br. 13.

Appellant's arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. Although the Examiner indicates that the "apparatus," "spectrum calculator," "slope evaluator," "processor," "hardware and/or software" recited in claim 1 pertain to generalized computer components (see Ans. 7), we note that the limitations set forth above are aimed at solving a technological problem rooted in signal processing (see Spec. 4). As persuasively argued by Appellant, by determining a predetermined characteristic indicating that an audio signal was subjected to an artificial bandwidth limitation processing the claimed process results in...