Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 92

Declaration of Christine Saunders Haskett filed by Plaintiffs Apple, Inc., NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. re: 90 Motion Requesting Claims Construction (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 Moto Infring. Cont. Ex. A, # 2 Ex. 2 '157 patent, # 3 Ex. 3 '179 patent, # 4 Ex. 4 '329 patent, # 5 Ex. 5 '230 file history, # 6 Ex. 6 Oxford dictionary definition, # 7 Ex. 7 '559 file history, # 8 Ex. 8 The OSI Model, # 9 Ex. 9 ISO Standard, # 10 Ex. 10 Japanese file history, # 11 Ex. 11 Japanese prosecution appeal, # 12 Ex. 13 Moto Infring. Cont. Ex. E, # 13 Ex. 14 IEEE Standard, # 14 Ex. 15 '333 patent, # 15 Ex. 16 '721 file history, # 16 Ex. 17 '193 file history, # 17 Ex. 18 Moto Infring. Cont. Ex. F, # 18 Ex. 19 Merriam Webster Dictionary, # 19 Ex. 20 Webster's Dictionary) (Haslam, Robert)

EXHIBIT 5

'I

.1

,I

**CI(JN"fINUII\!r:,

VERiFIED

'.1.'.'.' I" ,','j' 1""";";'/"/'"
"
..
,

,...

0',7 ?(::::~:f:::, {j.b:>: or.;/:;;::Ol':;'::::'

"H{;

co ; - :'l ::,:: 2 " ')::':'/

:1.1.'1/1.'/1:::::9

"""F'()F(F I(::iN/PC"J

VFP J F:' I [])

-.

OCT 0 1 1996

'

lit lII"a.tll••UII
Foreign prlortty claim.,cl
36 UsC·119 conditione m.t

.

0
0

y.$

~no

AS
FILED

~U "0
(j./<

Eximner's InitIals
.JUI·:II'I I,,i HIYil:,:::::; !'iICI'!'Cillll[
J l\I·fELI ..r:.:C·TI.Jt:iL. 1:'I~(:'i:C'

Verified and Acknowlltd ed

......

STATE OR SHEETS
COUfoITRY DRWGS.

TOTAL
CLAIMS

INDEP.
CLAIMS

FILING FEE
RECEIVED

ATIORNEY'S
DOCKET NO.

I. :::.

Ii.

1.::Cn:(F'UFdYl'L ()fT:' If;:l'·:·:.

1 ::1(1:':·) E: 1'::iI...Ci()I'.IU I n I::, .1, '
:"C I· II..IH1':{I..II: ((0;
I L.
(,1:"

,
,
."'.'U.S. DEPT. of COMM.·Pat. & TM Office-PTO-436L (rev. 10-78)
"

"'CEhlIFfaATE .--- ,,--".'".-- .
SEP

PARTS OF APPLICATION
ALED SEPARATELY

.....

1

NOTICE Of' ALLOWANCE MAILEO

",......----Assistant Examiner

~~,T~

DAVID O. KNEPPER
I--...I...._..I.-~_....I-.....;..._
PRIMARY EXAMINER
. GROUP
imary Examiner

Label
Area

....

PREPARl;o"j:OR ISSUE
WARNING:

giSCr,;~:;~

The information disclosed herein may be restricted. Unauthorized
may be prohibited
by the United States Code litle 35, Sections 122, 181 and 368/Possession outside the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office is restricted to authorized empt9yee~ and contractors only.

Fa"" PT0-436A
(Rev. 6/92)

(FACE) //

230FH001

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
.
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
Washington, DC 20231

Address

..L.:A:..:..;.,TT.:..O=..:...R:..:N.:.E.:..Y..:D:..:O:..:C:..:K.:.:E:..:T:....N=D~.

t-S_E_R_I_A_L_N_.U_M_B_E_R--'_F_I_L1_N_G_DA.TE·T_-=----__
···__
F_I_R_ST-,-N_A_M_E_D_A_PP_L_'_C_A_N_T

CN00476H

I

CiEFmON

07/422,927

..
DONALD B, SOUTHARI;o
lYIOTOI=i:OLA, INC"
1303 EAST ALGONQUIN RonD
-SCHAUMBURa, IL 60196

c_. -_.El<./l.MINER
~,

"

I

ART UNIT

3

al'
DATE MAILED.
This is 8 eOrnmunic81ion from tne e.ll8mlnOr

In

PAPER NUMBER

2:31

12/H)/90

charge of your application.

COt\l1MISSIONEA OF PATE:NTS AND TRAOEMARKS

~ Responsive

!8tThiS application has been examined

\2.-:TAn 'qo D

to communication filed on

This action is made final.

"":>

A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire~month(s), ~ days from the date of thIS letter.
Failure to respond within the period for response will cause the application to become abandoned.

Part I
L

35 U.S.C. 133

THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION'

-8 Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-l!92.

2.

3. ~otice of Art Cited by Applicant, PTO·1449

4.

5.

6.

:8:f Information on How to Effect Drawing Changes, PTO·1474

Part II

SUMMARY OF ACTION

1•.

J:8:C Claims~~

8. Notice re Patent Orawing, PTO·948.
D Notice of informal Patent Application, Form PTO·152
§
1-,'4 o~ ~Q.,JtJ J'>c4j1hi"Hl-V\

Of the above, claims

_

...

_ - - .- .. - - - - - . _ - - - - - - -

are pending in the application .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ are withdrawn from consideration.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ have been cancelled.

2.

0

Claims

3.

D

Claims

4.

l81'

Claims

5.

0

Claims

6.

0

Claims

7.

~

This application has been filed with informal drawings Which are acceptable for examination purposes until such time as allowable subject

I.

0

Allowable SUbject mailer having been indicated. formal draw lOgs are required in response to this Office action.

9.

0

are allowed.

}-(2...

are rejected.
are objected to.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ are subject to restriction or election requirement.

matter is indicated.

10.

D

The corrected or substitute drawings have been received on

o

TheO proposed drawing correction
has (have) been

ll.

0

• These drawings are

CI acceptable;

not acceptable lsee explanation).

0

andlor

the

approved by the examiner.

1.1 proposed additional or substitute sheet(s) or drawings, fried on
[J disapproved

The proposed drawlOg correction, frled_

~_ _

by the examiner (see explanation).
, has been

0

approved.

0

disapproved (see explanation). However,

the Patent and Trademark Office no longer makes drawing changes. It is now applicant's responsibility to ensure that the drawings (Ire
corrected. Corrections M.U..§J be effected in accordance with the instructions set fonh on the attached telter "IN FORMATION ON HOW TO

EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES", PTO·1474.
12.

0

13.

D

Acknowledgment is made of the claim 101 pliolity under 3S U.S.C. 119. The certified copy has

o

been filed in parent application. serial no. ,_ _"

0

been received

0

not been received

; filed on

SIOce this application appears to be in conditIOn for allowance except tor formal matters, prosecution as to the merrts

.
IS

closed in

accordance with the practice under Ex parle Quayle, 1935 C.D. 1I; 453 G.G. 213.

l4.

0

-,._---~~ .....

Otber

'L.J26 I Rev. 7·82)

... _-. ..

EXAMINER'S ACTION

~

------230FH063

Serial Number: 07/422,927
Art Unit 231

1.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.

Page 1
Paper #3

~112:

"The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of
the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,
and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains,
or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall
set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his
invention."
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.c. §112, first paragraph. as
failing to provide an enabling disclosure and failing to provide an adequate
written description of the invention.
Claims 1-7 are directed towards "a method of transmitting information."
However, the specification and drawings only show reconstructing speech from
transmitted parameters. Nothing is shown to explain how the information sent is
coded for transmission.
No specifics related to the gain values are taught in the specification nor
illustrated in the drawings. The "long term energy" and "gain vector" are shown
in figure 1 as the only inputs from which to calculate the excitation source. These
terms are apparently the claimed "first parameter" and "second parameter" but
there is no disclosure or draWing which shows how these terms relate to the voice
signal nor how to calculate them mathematically or otherwise.
The specification is also vague about the differences between a "frame" and
a "subframe" as well as what the inventor considers a "component" to be, since
gain is commonly measured with respect to both time and/or frequency. It is
unknown what a "pre-component" is (claims 8-12).

230FH064

Ser~ Number; 07/422,9;(1
Art Unit 231

Page 2
Paper #3

No "vector quantizing" (claim 3) is disclosed or illustratr2.

Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.s.C. S112, first paragraph. for the

reasons set forth in the objection to the specification.
3.

Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.

S 112, second paragraph, as being

indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are are directed towards desired results with no actual
steps performed which are of any substance. For example. claim 1 has the steps
of "processing" two parameters and "transmitting" the results.

The "first" and

"second" gain values claimed in the preamble suggest the data values to be used in
the processing calculations.
Claims 8-11 indicate that an energy value is "modified. when necessary."
However, there is no deci&ion step or other claim

language that would indicate

why someone would ever thifl:k it necessary to make a modification.

It is

unknown what It "pre-component" is.
None of the claims could be read on the drawings because most of the
claimed steps Simply are not illustrated. It appears that most the invention is
hidden in the box labelled "GAIN CONTROL 101" in figure 1.
4.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.s.C. S103 which forms the basis for all

obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action;
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
disclosed or described as set forth in section §102 of this title, if the differences

230FH065

Page 3
Paper #3

Serial Number: 07/422,927
Art Unit 231

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only
under subsection (0 and (g) of section ~102' of this title. shall not preclude
JBtentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed
invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same
person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person."
5.

Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over

IAlvidson (4,868,867).
As per claim

i, "a method of transmitting information that

relates to gain"

is taught or suggested by Davidson:
"processing at least the signal sample to provide:
a first parameter that relates to an overall energy value" (his
short-term linear predictive coding

(LPG)

analysis on the signals in block 54 to

extract from a frame of vectors a set of ten parameters {ail, col 13, lines 42-45 and
figure 5 - see also his ~pute gilin 66. figure 5 in which A gain factor Gj las to
be selected for every excitation" col 16, lines 40-41);

"a second parameter based, at leflSt in part. upon a relative
contribution of at leflSt one of the first and second gain values to the overall
energy value" (his Long-term LPC analysis is performed on the residual signal r
in block 56 to extract a set of four parameters 1M and P., col. 13, lines 65-57 and
figure 5);

230FH066

Page 4
Paper #3

Serial Number: 07/422,927
Art Unit 231

"transmitting information" (he transmits information with his
multiplexer 67, figure 5).
It is noted that Davidson does not explicitly teach gain values related to "a

first component" and "a second component."

However. he does teach perform

calculations from a frame of vectors which does contain gain values for each of
ten frequencies as noted above.
Claim 2: Using more than two values ('three") is taught by Davidson as
noted above.
Claims 3 and 4: Using "vector quantizing" is taught by Davidson's Vector
Excitation Coding (VXC) using vector quantization, col. 1, line 30.
Claim 5: If the energy value only applied to a single sample it would not

be "long-term" it would be a sample or short-term.
Claim 6: The first parameter used as "a correction factor that relates to the
long term energy value" is suggested by his gain factors which are used to correct
the pulses to their proper amplitudes.
Claim 7 is rejected under similar arguments as applied to claim 1 above.
Since there are more short-term coefficients than long-term coefficients, the
short-term coefficients would have to be sent "more often" than the long-term
term coefficients.
Claim 8 is

r~lected

as obvious in view of Davidson's figure 2:

230FH067

PageS

Serial Number: 07/422.927
Art Unit 231

"receiving at least a first parameter" (his ai and

Paper #3

hi which are short

and long-term predictor coefficients);
"receiving component definition information" (his

~

which

defines the excitation from the codebook)j
"processing the component definition information to provide a precomponent" (his pulse excitation CQdebook 32 provides the excitation for the filter);
"using at least the first J8rameter and modifying. when necessary.
the energy value of t.he pre·component" (his amplifier 29 which modifies by gain
values Gj. long term synthesizer 27 and short term synthesizer 28 which
reconstruct the speech signal).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under similar arguments as applied to claims 1-8
above. "ReceiVing" and "demodulating the radio signal" is considered obvious
because the use of radio signals for transmitting speech, music. etc. is extremely
well known.
Therefore. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
to configure a device such as Davidson's. forming a system on which claims 1-12
read.
6.

The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to

applicant's disclosure.

230FH068

Serial Number: 07/422,927
Art Unit 231

7.

Page 6
Paper #3

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications

from the examiner should be directed to Examiner David D. Knepper whose
telephone number is [phone]. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating
to the status of this application shoUld be directed to the Group receptionist whose
telephone number is [phone].

~hfJ<

David D. Knepper
Examiner
Art Unit 231
11/19/90

StL

f;:\.·;~~·:~<.'

l.n"{

r!.::r: t·~~r.~.~:~.~~
u;~rf ~::J

230FH069

...> ,\ll\

lfff. .

APPLICANT:
,
.
"

SERIAL NO.:
FILED:

OCTOBER 17, 1989

DOCKET NO.: CM-00476H

APPLICATION: DIGITAL SPEECH CODER HAVING OPTIMIZED SIGNAL
ENERGY PARAMETERS
Motorola, Inc.
Corporate Offices
1303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196
Date: June 17, 1991
RESPONSE
Hon. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231

RECEIVED
JUN

~,

/ jlJ91.

GROUP ~Y30
Dear Sir:
In response to the Office Action dated December 18,1990 (Paper No.3) as
entered in the above captioned matter, the Applicants respectfully submit the following
Response.
In the Claims:

~

/ /
/
Please amend claims 8, 9, and 10 as follows:

8.

(amended once) A method of recovering infor. ation that relates to gain

information for components of a signal, comprising he steps of:
A) receiving at least a first parameter that r. lates to energy for at least one
component of the signal;
B) receiving component definition infor ation for the at least one component;
C) processing the component definitio information to provide a precomponent, which pre-component has an e ergy value;
D) using at least the first parameter ~utliUilljl~~lJ.l.Ij;LQ1..1b.JU~Ql]].RQJo..e.nt
to provide a gain vSjlue; [and modifying, W en necessary the energy value of]

.1

",.

,

.. ,

230FH076

E) applying the gain value to the pre-comp nent, to provide a recovered
component of the signal.
\

9.

(amended once) A method of recoverin information that relates to gain

information for components of a signal, compri Ing the steps of:
A) receiving a radio signal;
B) demodulating the radio signal to pr vide a recovered signal;
C) extracting from the recovered sign I at least a first parameter that relates to
energy for at least one component of the si nal;

[BIll) extracting from the recovered ignal component definition information for
the at least one component;

[C] f) processing the component dfinition information to provide a precomponent, which pre-component has an energy value;
[D] E) using at least the first param ter and the energy value of the precomppnent to provide a gain value:
G) applying the gain value tp [an modifying, when necessary the energy value

0\

of] the pre-component, to prOVide
10.

a rec

(amended once) A radio that re

ered component of the signal.
ives speech coded information and that

synthesizes speech in response theret • compnslng:
A) RF means for receiving and emodulating a radio signal that includes
speech coded information;
B) excitation source means op rably coupled to the RF means for receiving the
speech coded information and:
1) extracting from the speec coded information at least a first parameter that
relates to energy for at lea

one component of a signal that relates to an

original speech signal;
2) extracting from the spe ch coded information component definition
information for the at lea

one component;

3) processing the compo ent definition information to provide a precomponent. which pre-c mponent has an energy value;
4) using at least the firs parameter and the energy value of the pre~aw2JYi11Q..:tb.et...g.Stin...~u.e...1Q

[and modifying, when necessary the energy

anent, to provide a recovered component of the signal;

I

I

2

l;

230FH077

.6. [5]) providing an excitation signal sing the recovered component of the
signal;
C) LPC filter means for receivi

the excitation signal ~nd for providing a

synthesized speech sign~l. in r.e.~:p~=.:.:.ns::.:e:...t::.h:.:e:.:.:re::.:t.::o:....

:::;;.,.

-------'

A1ease add new claifl)s"13-19 to read as follows:
13.

(new) A method of transmitting information that relates to gaO information for a

subframe, wherein the gain information includes:
a first gain value that relates to gain for a first component·
at least a second gain value that relates to gain for a se ond component;
comprising the steps of:
A) processing at least the subframe to provide:
a first parameter that relates to an overall e
a second parameter based, at least in pa

rgy value for the subframe;
upon a relative contribution of

at ~east one of the first and second gain values to the verall energy value;
B) transmitting information related to the first
14.

d second arameters.

(new) The method of claim 13, wherein:

the gain information includes at least a th
third component;
the step of processing includes additi

to gain for a

ally providing a

at least in part, upon a relative contribution f a different-

rd parameter based,

of the first, second, and

third gain values to the overall energy val e;
the step of transmitting informatio includes transmission of information relating
to the third component.
15.

(new) The method of claim 1 , wherein the step of processing includes the step
of vector quantizing at least the fir parameter and second parameter information to
provide a code.

/

16.
(new) The method of c'9(m 15, wherein the step of transmitting includes
transmitting the code.
.

3

230FH078

17.

(new) The method of claim 13, and further including the step of ransmitting,

from time to time, long term energy value information that
subframes.

rel~tes

to

plurality of

18.
(new) The method of claim 17, wherein the first para ter comprises a
correction factor that relates to the long term energy value' formation.
19.

(new) A method of transmitting information that elates to gain information for a

subframe, wherein the gain information includes:
a first gain value that relates to gain for a fi t component; and
at least a second gain value that relates
comprising the steps of:
A) processing at least the subframe

gain for a second component:

provide at least first and second

parameters that together relate to an ove II energy value for the subframe and the
relative contribution of at least one of t

first and second gain values to the overall

energy value;
B) transmitting information re ted to the first and second parameters.

-------------

REMARKS
1.

In the above note office action, the Examiner objected to both the

specification and the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112, first and second paragraphs.
Claims 1-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 given Davidson et al. (U.S. Patent
No. 4,868,867). The Applicants respectfully traverse these rejections and request
reconsideration.
2.

The specification has been objected to under 35 U.S.C. §112, first

paragraph. The Examiner argues various instances where the specification is
preceived to fail to provide an enabling disclosure or to provide an adequate written
description of the invention. The Examiner's specific points of contention will be
considered here in seriatim fashion in the order in which the Examiner raised them.
The Examiner argues that no information is provided regarding "transmission"
of the gain parameters. The application, however, is replete with numerous references
to transmission activity in general, and of the gain information In particular. Consider
the following excerJ}ts:
4

230FH079

The pitch and code book information Will then be coded and transmitted to the
decoder by a transmission medium of choice [page 7, lines 7-9].
This value [the quantized signal energy value Eq(O)] is1transmitted from the
coder to the decoder from time to time as appropriate to provide the decoder
with this information [page 10, lines 23-26].
In this embodiment, the coder does not actually transmit the three parameters Ct,

p, and 11: to the decoder.

Instead. these parameters are vector quantized, and a

representative code that identifies the result is transmitted to the decoder [page
12, lines 4-8].

When the vector code that yields the smallest ERROR value has been identified,
that vector code is then transmitted to the decoder [page 13, lines 20-22].
Further, the interrelationship of the original gain information as represented in
the Ct, p, and 11: parameters allows for a greater condensation of information, and
concurrently further minimizes transmission capacity requirements to support
transmittal of this information. As a result, this methodology yields improved
reconstructed speech results with a concurrent reduced transmission capacity
requirement [page 14, lines 8-15].
Further, FIG. 2' makes quite clear that the transmission medium of choice
comprises radio waves (201). The mechanism for encoding the speech information is
either well known in the art (i.e., see U.S. 4,817,157 as incorporated by reference by
the applicant into the specification) or disclosed in the instant specification (particularly
with respect to the gain parameters themselves). The exact specifics for any particular
RF encoding scheme are, of course, not partiCUlarly relevant to this invention. Any
modulation scheme, now know or hereafter developed. could be used, so long as it
succeeded in transferring the speech coded information (including the gain
parameters) from a coder to a decoder.
If the Examiner believes that, notWithstanding the above, the application could
benefit from the standpoint of clarity by including an additional figure and related
description specifically directed towards transmission. the applicant respectfully

5

230FH080

7

submits that the drawing below and the following text could r~adily be included in the
application without introducing new matte"

F tG-. '7;,
Referring now to FIG. 3, a radio transmitter (300) embodying the invention
includes a source (301) for receiving a voiced message intended for
transmission. This voiced message is processed in a speech coding unit (302)
in accordance with the above, and the resulting data is provided to a transmitter
(303) which serves to transmit the speech coded signal (201). Importantly, in
addition to the speech coding elements that are common to the art, the speech
coded signal (201) also includes data that is representative of the a and 13
parameters.
If the Examiner so requests, the applicant shall so amend the application.
The Examiner next argues that the specification provides no specifics with
respect to "gain values", and he suggests that the "long term energy" and "gain
vectors" are the "first parameter" and "second parameter" of the claim.
To begin, the "long term energy· and the "gain vector" are

not the "first" and

"second parameter" of the claims. Rather, the "first parameter" and the ·second
parameter" of the claims are the "parameters a and 13" of the specification, regarding
which the specification includes a significant quantity of enabling information. (In FIG.
1, both of these parameters are provided via the "gain vector" as explained in the text.)
The applicant also believes it appropriate to point out an apparent
misunderstanding on the part of the Examiner. The Examiner's statement, "The 'long
term energy' and 'gain vector' are shown in figure 1 as the only inputs from which to
calculate the excitation source," mistakenly suggests that the long term energy and

6

230FH081

gain vectors are used to calculate an excitation source. Instead, it is the pitch filter state
(112) that sources pitch excitation information, and the codeb\'oks (103 and 104) that
source codebook excitation information.
Lastly, a significant amount of information is provided relevant to calculation of
the gain values, particularly when one keeps in mind that how one calculates the gain
values is not particularly relevant here; what is relevant is how one combInes those
gain values to make them more suitable for transmission (by whatever medium one
might choose). With this in mind. the teachings of 4,817,157, as incorporated by
reference into the specification, provides significant details regarding calculation of
gain in the context of speech coding. Beyond this, specific equations are set forth on
pages 9 and 10 that allow the calculation of both GAIN 1 and GAIN 2.
The Examiner next argues that the differences between a "frame" and a
"subframe" are unclear. A "frame" is well understood in the art. For example, specific
details regarding what constitutes a frame can be found in 4,817,157 as incorporated
by reference into the specification by the applicant. A "subframe" is simply a
subordinate portion ot a frame, in accordance with a straight-forward grammatical
interpretation of the term and in accordance with well understood prior art knOWledge.
Further, the applicant has specifically stated, at page 8, that in his embodiment, each
frame is made up of four subframes. The applicant therefore respectfully submits that
the specification is not unduly "vague" regarding the difference between a frame and a
subframe.
The Examiner argues that it is unclear what a "component" is, and what a "precomponent" is. The use of both terms in the claims has clear antecedent basis in the
specification. For example, at page 7, beginning at line 25, the specification reads:
The energy of the pitch excitation and codebook excitation signals that are
output from the pitch excitation filter state (102) and the codebook(s) (103 and
104) (Le., the precomponents) can be readily determined by the gain control
(101 ).
Therefore, the pre-components are simply the pitch excitation signals and the
codebook excitation signals as output by the pitch filter state (102) and the codebooks

7

230FH082

(103 and 104), respectively. The concept of component is pra.sented on page 10 of the
specification, beginning at line 9:
With GAIN 1 and GAIN 2 calculated as determined above, the pitch excitation
and codebook excitation information will be properly scaled, both with respect
to their values vis a vis one another, and as a composite result provided at the
output of the summation function (109), thereby proViding appropriate
recovered components of the signal.
Therefore, the components are simply the scaled pitch excitation signals and the
codebook excitation signals.
The Examiner argues that "vector quantizing" as specified in claim 3 is not
disclosed. The applicant refers the Examiner to page 12, beginning at line 4, which
reads:
In this embodirpent, the coder does not actually transmit the three parameters

Ct,

~, and 1t to the decoder. Instead, these parameters are vector quantized, and

a representative code that identifies the result is transmitted to the decoder.
Vector quantizing, of course, is well understood in the art, and particularly in the art of

speech coding. The applicant therefore respectfully submits that direct and adequate
support exists for use of the expression in the claims.
The applicants therefore respectfully submit that the specification fully complies
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
3. Claims 1-12 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, for
the same reasons as set forth above with respect to the specification. That objection to
the specification has been traversed above, and those same observations are
applicable here as well. These same observations will not be presented here,
however, for the sake of brevity. The applicants respectfully submit that the
specification is compliant with 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph and that the claims are
not rejectable in view thereof.

8

230FH083

4.
Claims 1-12 have been rejected under 35 u.s.6. §112, second
paragraph. The Examiner argues that the claims fail to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. With
respect to claims 1-7 and clai m 12, the Exami ner specifically argues that these claims:
[A]re directed towards desired results with no actual steps performed
which are of any substance. For example, claim 1 has the steps of
"processing" two parameters and "transmitting" the results. The "first" and
"second" gain values claimed in the preamble suggest the data values to
be used in the processing calculations.
First, the applicant disputes that the steps of these claims lack "substance."
Although the "processing" step allows for a broad interpretation as to exactly how the
processing occurs, the net result of this particular function reads quite specifically; Le.,
the processing results in, "a first parameter that relates to an overall energy value for
the signal sample [, and] a second parameter based, at least in part, upon a relative
contribution of at least one of the first and second gain values to the overall energy
value." Similarly, the step of "transmitting", while relatively broad and admitting of
many modes of transmission, can hardly be said to be non substantive. As well stated
in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure,
The fact that a claim is broad does not necessarily justify a rejection on
the ground that the claim is vague and indefinite or incomplete. In
nonchemical cases, a claim may, in general, be drawn as broadly as
permitted by the prior art [MPEP 706.03(d)].
Second, even if the Examiner's comments were accurate, the applicant does
not understand how 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph would be contradicted. As
established at least as early as 1938, there is nothing per S8 wrong with simply
claiming results. See, for example, Wabash, 37

u.s.p.a. 466 (S.Ct. 1938).

35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph simply requires that an applicant particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant regards as his
invention. In that light, exactly how one processes the signal sample is not considered
by the applicant to be a part of his invention; rather, it is the fact that the processing
results in a first parameter that relates to an overall energy value for the signal sample

9

230FH084

on the one hand, and a second parameter b-ased, at least in part, upon a relative
contribution of at least one of the first and second gain values to the overall energy
value on the other hand, that is important. Similarly, it is not particularly how one
transmits the Information related to the first and second parameters that is important,
so long as transmission in some manner is accommodated.
The applicants terminology of choice is, admittedly, broad. Again, however,
breadth does not necessarily equate with vagueness. From the standpoint of applying
prior art, the Examiner is free to apply any art that processes a signal sample in any
manner, where that processing yields the first and second parameters as specifically
set forth in the claim. Therefore, with all due respect, the applicants submit that claims
1-7 and claim 12 are not so mysteriously worded as to run afoul of the requirements of
35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.
The Examiner has also objected to claims 8-11 under this section. In particular,
the Examiner questions the applicants' phrase, "modified. when necessary." In an
effort to resolve the Examiner's concern in as straight forward a manner as possible.
the applicants have amended the relevant claims to avoid the expression "when
necessary." If the Examiner still harbors concerns notwithstanding this change, the
applicants specifically invite the Examiner to contact applicants' counsel by telephone
to discuss other changes that the Examiner believes might be appropriate.
Lastly, the Examiner suggests that the claims cannot be read on the drawings.
At the outset, the applicants note that such a condition. when present. does not
necessarily constitute a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112. Rather, it may be an
indication that the Examiner wishes to exert his authority under 37 C.F.R. 1.81 (c). If in
fact there are other drawings that the Examiner believes would be helpful to the reader
in better understanding the invention, the applicants would be happy to comply. It is
appropriate. however, that the Examiner indicate with greater specificity those
particular elements that the Examiner believes should be specifically depicted in the
drawings. Although the applicants believe that many of the processing activities
comprising the invention, which activities are defined quite specifically in the
specification via equations and associated text are best described as presently set
forth, the applicants are quite willing to consider those specific changes that the
Examiner believes

~ppropriate.

Again, the applicants invite the Examiner to contact

10

230FH085

applicants' counsel by telephone as a means of perhaps most quickly resolving this
issue.

\
5. Claims 1-12 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 given Davidson. At

the outset, the applicants note that Davidson describes a speech coder that
intentionally seeks to limit computational capacity resource requirements at the coder
in order to facilitate a less complicated and less expensive coding platform. To this
end, Davidson expresses particular concern for, and poses a solution for, the problem
of selecting an appropriate excitation vector from a code book, as versus simply trying
all candidate code book entries as often proposed in the art. Computation of various
gain values, however, does not appear to concern Davidson in the same way.
Further, Davidson does not seem particular concerned with respect to transmission
capacity issues represented by transmission of gain values. This seems particularly
so since Davidson merely implements the prior art technique of transmitting a
corresponding gain value for each pulse excitation vector indices. (For one of many
illustrative comments to this effect, see, for example, column 17, lines 18-25.)
Therefore, the fundamental approach and concerns of Davidson are quite distinct from
those of the instant application. The applicants' invention is not particularly concerned
with how one selects a particular code book excitation entry. Rather, the instant
invention is more concerned with how gain information (which gain information is
relevant to ultimately properly reconstituting the speech signal) can be transmitted with
minimum transmission capacity requirements.
With the above in mind, the Examiner's specific application of Davidson to the
claims will now be considered. To begin, Davidson does admittedly teach a method of
transmitting information that relates to gain information for his signal sample as
already noted above. The Examiner suggests, however, th.at the "first parameter of
claim 1 corresponds to both the short term linear predictive coding analysis (block 54
in FIG. 5) and a "compute gain" (66) block. The applicant Vigorously disagrees with
the Examiner's characterization of the short term LPC analysis block. That particular
block relates to processing of the original signal with respect to a spectral envelope,
and does not correspond in any viable sense to a first parameter that relates to an
overall energy value for the signal sample. More particularly, the output of the short
term LPC analysis block can hardly be considered to be an "overall energy value for
the signal sample." .The compute gain block (66), however, does function to select a
gain factor for every excitation value. Therefore, at least for the sake of argument and
11

230FH086

this discussion, the applicants are willing to concede for the moment that the compute
gain block does produce a first parameter that relates to an overall energy value for
the signal sample, which in the case of Davidson, constitutes\a gain factor for each
excitation value.
The Examiner nex1 asserts that the second parameter is provided in Davidson
through the long term LPC analysis that is performed on the residual signal in block
56. The applicants strongly dispute this characterization of Davidson. The second
parameter, according to the claim, must be based, at least in part, upon a relative
contribution of at least one of the first and second gain values (which first and second
gain values are specified to relate to first and second components of the signal
sample) to the overall energy value, the latter having antecedent basis in that the first
parameter itself relates to the overall energy value. Quite simply, the long term LPC
analysis block (56) does not equate with the requirements of the claim in this regard.
Instead, as quite clearly depicted in FIG. 5 as relied upon by the Examiner, the gain,
information, such as it is, from the compute gain block (66) is never provided to the
long term LPC analysis block (56) or any other block in the analysis section of
Davidson's encoder. Therefore, Davidson clearly makes no teachings that equate
with the sum of the recitations of claim 1. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in
Davidson or other of the references cited by the Examiner that one might wish to
modify the structure of Davidson in some manner so as to meet the limitations of claim
1. Therefore, the applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is neither anticipated by
nor rendered obvious in view of the Davidson reference.
Claim 2 sets forth a third gain value that relates to yet a third component of the
signal sample, and provides for a modified processing step wherein a third parameter
is provided, which third parameter is based, at least in part, upon a relative
contribution of a different one of the first, second, and third gain values to the overall
energy value, as distinct from the relative contribution represented by the second
parameter. Davidson wholly fails to teach or suggest provision of such a parameter.
Claim 3 requires that the first and second parameters are vector quantized to
provide a code. The applicant readily concedes that the concept of vector quantizing
is certainly known in the art, and is also applied in the contex1 of voice coders. The
applicants respectfully submit, however, that vector quantizing has not been utilized
12

230FH087

with respect to a first and second parameter_as defined in these claims. Therefore, the
applicant submits that claim 3 may be passed to allowance.

\
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, which claim has been shown allowable above.
Therefore, claim 4 may be passed to allowance as well.
With respect to claim 5, the Examiner makes the following statement:
If the energy value only applied to a single sample it would not be "long
term" it would be a sample or short term.
In the context of an obviousness type rejection, the applicant is uncertain as to
the Examiner's point. Therefore, the applicant is uncertain as to the response that
should be made. The applicant will note that claim 5 includes an additional step of
transmitting, from time to time, long term energy value information that relates to a
plurality of signal samples, as distinct from the first and second parameters, which
correspond to a signal sample or to a component thereof. This concept is absent from
Davidson, and hence the applicants respectfully submit that the claim may be passed
to allowance. If the Examiner had a different point in mind to raise, the applicants
respectfully submit that such point should be articulated in a non-Final Office Action.
Claim 6 specifies that the first parameter comprises a correction factor that
relates to the long term energy value information specifically provided in claim 5. The
Examiner suggests that the gain values of Davidson are used to correct pulses to their
proper amplitudes. The applicants observe, however, that even viewed in this light,
the gains being corrected do not constitute long term energy value information.
Instead, they represent discrete independent events. Therefore, claim 6 may be
passed to allowance.
Claim 7 is an independent claim, and provides for transmitting information that
relates to a first value, which itself relates to a long term energy value for a signal, and
for then transmitting, on a more frequent basis, information relating to a second value,
which second value relates to a short term energy value for the signal, which itself
comprises a correction factor to be applied in conjunction with the first value.
Davidson does not provide for long term, as distinguished from short term, energy
values, and specifically does not provide a correction factor to be applied against a

13

230FH088

long term energy value to accommodate a short term conditi~n. Therefore, the
applicants respectfully submit that claim 7 be passed to allowance.
Claim 8 constitutes an independent claim, and addresses recovering some of
the information developed in accordance with the earlier claims. The Examiner has
rejected claim 8 as being obvious in view of Davidson's FIG. 2. With reference to that
figure, Davidson does admittedly teach reception of a first parameter that relates to
energy for at least one component of the signal (this being QGJ). Davidson also
appears to teach receiving component definition information for the at least one
component (for example, the information prOVided to the short term and long term
synthesizers). As amended, however, claim 8 now requires that both the precomponent energy value and the first parameter be used to provide a gain value, and
that this gain value then be applied to the precomponent to obtain the recovered
component. Claims 9 and 10 have been similarly altered. Davidson makes no such
provision. Instead, he appears to practice the prior art convention of applying a gain
value (previously calculated at and transmitted by the transmitter) to his precomponent in order t'? obtain his recovered component. Therefore, the applicants
respectfully submit that claims 8-10 (along with dependent claim 11) may be passed to
allowance.
Claim 12 was rejected

und~H

similar grounds as applied to claim 1 above.

which rejections were traversed. The applicants therefore respectfully submit that
claim 12 may be passed to allowance as well.
6. The applicants readily concede that the instant invention involves complex
subject matter. Accordingly, if the Examiner believes that additional discussion will be
helpful, either to facilitate a better understanding of the invantion, of the claim
terminology, or of distinctions between the invention and the prior art, the Examiner is
expressly invited to contact applicants' counsel by telephone. In the alternative, if the
Examiner believes it would be helpful, applicants' counsel is quite willing to meet with
the Examiner for an in-office interview to discuss these same issues.

14

230FH089

The applicants respectfully solicit Notice of Allowance of claims 1-12.

RESPECTFyLLY SUBMITTED,
IRA ALAN GERSON ET AL.

By:

, herebv -.tfV """ tllil _ ......._

. . I. '"""0

depO.lted with the Un~ed Stales POfital S.,..c. a.
fltsl clau min in an envel~ addre5l\ed 10;
CommtBSlorte( ot Parent8 and TrademaW:I. washington,

D.C. 20231 on

..:; / , /

F/,

I

& i4'OII.oI 4

\-

s:=::(~

Steven G. Parmelee
Attorney of Record
Registration No. 28,790
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]

Da

q{)

. "Wb'<.

15

230FH090

\PATENT APPLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

EXAMINER:

07/888,463

ARTGROUP:

FILED:

MAY 20, 1992

DOCKErNO.:

APPLICATION:

DIGITAL SPEECH CODER HAVING OPI1MIZED SIGNAL ENERGY
PARAMETERS

2308

/)/}_

CM-00476HCO~//i/t3-~
I
~Bd

'

Motorola, Inc.
Corporate Offices
1303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196
Date: lunell, 1993

AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE
Honorable Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
Dear Sir:
In response to an Office Action dated September 10, 1992' (paper No. 10),
as entered in the above-captiened maller, the Applicants respectfully submit
the following Amendment and Response and request further examination.

In the Specification: ,
On page

,

5,.k~ 5~ease

replace the period (.) after the word

"invention" with a semicolon (;), then add the following new paragraphs:

~

_Fig~S-'a flowchart depicting a speech coding methodology in

accordance with the present invention;

<:)\

Fi~S" a block diagram of a radio transmitter employing a speech
coder;
Fig.

/iHus~;ates

frame and subframe organization of digitized speech

samples; Ind

'ZD

230FH132

~\

V

-c-,

Fig.~~Chart

paramete~" (lata

showing portions of a vector quantized signal energy

base...-.,

-------0.;;..·~-p-a-g-e-7-, ~n:

_ _ _ _ _ _......::.sc::n:.;t::,en::.c::e:,:s:;.:_-(Fig.

{-~;~er the word "choice" please add the following

4iii~s~r~tes

this transmission process in block diagram form.

Speech samples are provided to a speech coder (402), such as the one discussed
above. through an associated microphone (401).

The output of the speech

coder (403) is then coupled to a radio transmitter (403), well-known in the art,
where the speech coder output signals are used to generate a modulated RF
carrier (405) that can be transmitted through a suitable antenna structure
(404) .......

L

On page 14, J(~e IS, after the word "requirement" please add the
follQwjui' new

parai'rllphs~

- The flowchart of Fig. 3 provides a concise

representation of method steps used to code and transmit a succession of
speech samples in' the manner taught by the present invention.

As discussed

previously, a speech sample is provided to a speech coder (block 301) and
digitized (302).

In the next step (303), the sample is subdivided into selected

portions or subframes.
In the subsequent operation (304), a long term energy value Eq(O) is
determined for the sample.
first parameter

0;

Then (305), for a selected portion of the sample. a

is calculated with respect to the long term energy value.

As

suggested in the discussion above, this first. parameter' IX may be a scale factor
that relates the long term energy value to the overall energy in a particular
subframe.
In the next step (306), at least one excitation component as corresponds
to the speech sample is selected.

This excitation component may be the pitch

excitation information energy for a particular subframe.

After this

component is selected. the next operation (307) determines a second parameter

2

230FH133

~ by calculating the relative contribution of this selected excitation
component (or components) to the overall energy value for that subframe.

<;)J

The subsequent operation (308) vector quantizes the first and second
parameters in order to develop representative information.

Vector

quantizing, of course, yields a representative code that identifies the
information.

This results in significant information compression' when

compared to the first and second parameters themselves.

Finally (309), the

representative information is transmitted._
On page 12. ·'i:e i,T'a-f-te-r-th-e-w-o-r-d-"m-eth-O-d-"-p-l-e-a-se-a-d-d-th-e-fi-o-u-o-W-in-g-n-e-w--------j

[

_ _ _ _ _ _...;:p;..a_r_ag::;;.r_a..:,p_h_:_.
-~-iil~str~t~-; how a complete frame of digitized speech
samples. generally depicted by the numeral 500, is divided into subframes.

As

mentioned previously, each frame is divided into four subframes (501-504).
The quantized signal energy value Eq(O) (505), calculated for .each complete
frame of digitized speech samples, is transmitted once per frame.

-.
l

parameters,

i~dicated

The a and

~

in the figure as part of a gain vector (OV) (506-509) are

transmitted for eve;..._~lI.~~e:~.;;..~'··=-" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
On page ~('iine 8, after the word "decoder" please add the following

_ _ _ _ _ _...::s"'e:::nJ:Jte""n""c"'e""s:'---_-I,Portions··-~f~-·~ectorquantized signal energy parameter data base,
generally depicted by the numeral 600, are shown in Fig. 6.

The data base

comprises a set of seven-bit representative codes or vectors (601), and a set of
associated signal energy parameters.

There are 128 possible vector codes (601)

in this example. with each vector code having an associated a,~. and
parameter (602-604).

1&

The decimal numbers shown in the figure are for

example purposes only, and would have to be selected in practice to
compliment all of the particulars of a specific application.,

3

230FH134

In

tX'\
~.1\\

y

di

.:.P.:.I.:;.ea:::s:.:e:......:am=e;::n:.::..d ~]a.~rn~_.~-!.li.rough 3 and 7 through 10 as follo~ :

---::_--.._oo::::::::-

r...0

~:'~_I. whhom '1 ,,!"'m, s./..,(. 1~ -:::.gh ::

tho

I( g~in

(Once Amended)

A method [of] fw: transmitting information

relates to

information [for]
the gain

information that corresponds to
information

includes:

a first gain value that relates to gain
excitation

component
n

energ:y

yalue;
at least a second gain value that relates to

to be lij!plied to a

second excitation component

has a second enerln' value;
the method comprising Jhe steps of:
A) providing: a speech sample:

E)

providing: a

relates to an overall energy value
dig:itjzed speech sample;

El providing: a second para eter based, at least in part, upon a relative
contribution of

a~

least

[and second] gain valuers] to the

overall energy

230FH135

[8]

m

transmitting info

tion related to the

lon~

term eneriY value

and the first and second p ameters.

2.

(Once Amended)

/

The method of claim 1
value that relates to

the gain information includes at least
gain [for] to be applied to a third excitation

third excitation

Ell . [the step of

providing a third
contribution of [a different·

parameter based, at least in part, upo
one of]

~

the first[,] lI..W1. secon

third] gain values to the overall

energy value
the step

includes transmission of

information relating to the th' d [component] parameter

3.

(Once Amended)

includes] further
...

..

.

The method of claim 1 [wherein the step of processing

including the step of vector quantizing at least the first

parameter . and second parameter information . to provide a code.
...._........- ..... .

7.

(Once Amended)

<----------1

A method [of] f.Qr transmitting information th

gain information for a [signal]

information

includes:
a first value that relates to a long term energy val

for the [signal]

speech samtlle:

5

230FH136

1
at least a second value, wherein the second value telates to a short ten!.
energy value for the speech

sample [signal], and comprises a

to be applied with the first value;
comprising the steps of:
A)

transmitting, from time to time, information relating to

B)

transmitting, more often than from time to time, in rmation

value;

relating to the second value.

8.

(Twice Amended)

A method [of]

fur. recovering

gain information for excitation components of a signal,
comprising the steps of:
A)

receiying at least a first parameter

least one excitation component of the signal;
B)

receiving excitatipn component definiti

least one excitation
C)

component;

processing the excitatjon

to

provide a pre-component, which pre-component
D)

information for the at

using at least the first parameter

as an energy value;
the energy value 'of the

pre-component to provide a gain value;
E)

applying the gain value to

to provide a

recovered excitation component of the si

9.

(Twice Amended)

gain information for excitation

information that relates to
ents of a signal. the method

comprising the steps of:
A)

receiving a radio
6

230FH137

B)

demodulating the radio signal to provide a \recovered signal;

C)

extracting from the recovered signal at least a first

that relates to energy for at least one excitation component of the
D)

extracting from the recovered signal excitation

definition information for the at least one excitation
E)

component;

processing the excitation component definition info.

to

provide a pre-component, which pre-component has an energy
F)

using at least the first parameter and the energy v

the

pre-component to provide a gain value;
G)

applying the gain value to

recovered component of the signal.

10.

(Twice Amended)

A radio that receives

information and that

synthesizes speech in response thereto, comprising:
A)

RF means for receiving

a, radio signal that

includes speech coded information;
B)

excitation source means operably

receiving the speech coded information and:
1)

extracting from the speech

first parameter that

component of

a signal that relates to an original speech lsi
2)

information excitation

component definition information for
3)

excitation

processing the

component definition

information to provide
energy

component;

which pre-component has an

value;

7

230FH138

4)

using at least the first parameter and the

\

the pre-component to provide a gain value:
5)

applying the gain value to the pre-co

anent, to provide a

recovered component of the signal;
6)

providing an excitation

the recovered

component of the signal;
LPC filter means for

C)

-

the excitation signal and for

providing a synthesized

in response thereto.

------------1

Please add new claims 22 through 24 as follows:
22.

(New)

The method of claim I, wherein the digitized

comprises a frame of information and

the digitized

speech sample comprises a suhframe.

23.

(New)

the first pa ameter is a scale
of information to

24.

(New)

The method of cl m 22, wherein the seco

that relates pitch excitatio
value for the

is a ratio

energy for the subframe to the overall energy

sUbfr~m?l(

/
1.

& parameter

REMARKS

Pursuant to the above-noted Office Action, the drawings have

been objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) on the ground that the drawings fail to
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims..

The Specification

8

230FH139

has been objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112. first paragraph. as failing to provide
an enabling disclosure and failing to provide an adequate written description
of the invention. and claims 1 through 21 have been rejected under the same
paragraph of the above-cited section for the reasons set forth in the objection
to the Specification.

Claims

through 16 have also been rejected under 35

U.S.C. 112. second paragraph. as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicants regard
as the invention.
Further. claims I through g and 11 through 21 have been rejected under
35 U.S.C. 101 on the ground that the claimed invention is directed toward nonstatutory subject matter.

Claims 1 through 21 have also been rejected under 35,

U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4.868.867).
These rejections are respectfully traversed.

2.

In response to the Examiner's objection to the drawings, four

proposed drawing sheets including six drawing figures are attached hereto for
the Examiner's approval.

Sheet 1 is essentially a duplicate of original Fig. I,

except that the label "PRE-COMPONENT" has been added to the outputs of the
PITCH FILTER STATE (102), CODEBOOK NO.1 (103), and CODEBOOK NO.2 (104).
Also, the LONG TERM ENERGY input to the GAIN CONTROL block (101) has been
labelled Eq(O), while the GAIN VECTOR input had been labelled GV(a.~,:n;). The
use of the term "pre-component" to describe the excitation signals that are
output from the pitch excitation filter state and the codebooks is wellsupported in the Specification

(~

for example, page 7, lines 25-29).

Also. the

Specification recites that the gain control function (101) provides gain
information "as a function of . . . the long term energy value as provided by
the coder [Eq(O)]., and a gain vector (GV) provided by the coder that supplies a
9

230FH140

short term correction value for the long term energy valle."
16-24).

(Page 7, lines

The long term energy value is defined as Eq(O) on page 9 of the

Specification [Lines 1-2J, while the parameters
gain vector parameters on page 12 [Lines 4-8].

a, p,

and 1t are identified as

For these reasons, the

Applicants .submit that the additional markings on Fig. 1 do not constitute new
matter. and should therefore be permitted.
Proposed drawing sheet number 2 includes a duplicate of old Fig. 2 and
proposed Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 shows, in block diagram form, a transmitter employing

a speech coder.

The Specification recites that "[iJn one embodiment of the

invention, the first and second parameters . . . are vector .quantized to provide
a code.
decoder."

This code then comprises the information that is transmitted to the
[Page 3. line 30 to page 4. line 2].

The Specification also suggests that

"the speech coder/decoder platform is located in a radio."

[Page 4, lines 28-29J.

Also, "[t)he pitch and codebook information will then be coded and transmitted
to the decoder by a transmission medium of choice."
the concept of locating the

spe~ch

[Page 7. lines 7-9J.

Since

coder in a radio is also claimed, the

Applicants respectfully submit that proposed drawing figure 4, and the
associated descriptive text added pursuant to this Amendment, do not constitute
new matter. and should therefore be entered.
Proposed drawing sheet 3 includes proposed Fig. 3. which is a flowchart
that closely tracks the method steps of claim 1, as amended.

The first steps

depicted in the flowchart, those of providing a speech sample and digitizing.
are common to any speech coder implementation, and are illustrated in Gerson
(U.S. Patent No. 4.817,157), which patent is incorporated by reference into the
instant Application.

In addition, the Specification describes the process as

follows:

10

230FH141

For purposes of this description. it will be
presumed that an original speech sample (or at least
a ponion thereof) is digitized. and that the, resultant
digital information is divided as necessary into
frames and subframes of data, all in accordance with
In this
well understood prior art· technique.
description, it will also be presumed that each frame
is comprised of four subframes.
[Specification, page 8, lines 14·21].

The remaining steps of calculating the

first and second parameters and vector quantizing are discussed at some
length on pages 11 through 14.

Therefore, the Applicants submit that Fig. 3

does not encompass new matter and should. consequently, be entered.
Sheet 4 includes proposed new drawing figures 5 and 6.

Fig. 5 illustrates

the frame and subframe organization of digitized speech samples.

As described

above, the ·Specification includes a discussion of the frame and subframe
nature of the digitized speech information with which the present invention
is concerned.

The Specificatioll also recites that "the quantized signal energy

value Eq(O) can be calculated for a complete frame of digitized speech samples
(and) transmiued from the coder to the decoder from time to time."
lines 21-24].

[Page 10.

Modification of long term energy information to derive

appropriate parameters for eacn subframe is treated in detail on pages 11
through 14.

Fig. 6 illustrates ponions of a data base of vector quantized signal

energy parameters as they relate to a set of vector codes.

This concept of

vector quantizing the subframe signal energy parameters is described
staning with page 12, line 4, and ending on page 14, line 15.

For these reasons,

the Applicants respectfully submit that proposed drawing figures 5 and 6,
along with associated explanatory text, do not constitute new maner and are
suitable for entry.

3.

The specification has been objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112, first

paragraph, for failing to provide an enabling disclosure and failing to provide
11

230FH142

an adequate written description of the invention.

The Examiner asserts.

among other objections. that, while claims 1-7 seem direc\cd toward "a method
of transmitting information," the Specification and drawings only show
reconstructing speech from transmitted parameters and do not explain how
the information sent is coded for transmission.

Pursuant to this Amendment.

new drawing figures 4 and 5, with attendant descriptive matter. are submitted
for the Examiner's review.

For the reasons set forth above with respect to

entry of these new figures and descriptions. the Applicants respectfully
submit that the Specification now avoids the Examiner's objections relating to
a method of transmitting information.
The Examiner also maintains that no specifics related to gain values are'
taught in the Specification or illustrated in the drawings.

A thorough

discussion of the inputs used in calculation of the excitatiop. source is included
in the Gerson patent (' 157) incorporated by reference into the instant
disclosure.

As to the claimed "first parameter" and "second parameter." the

flowchart of proposed Fig. 3 and the associated description clearly articulate
the relationship between these terms and the voice signal.

Contrary to the

Examiner's impression, the first and second parameters are actually
corrections to the long-term energy that relate to energy within a subframe.
As discussed above. this relationship was covered in detail in the Specification
even before the proposed introduction of the additional explanatory matter
included in this Amendment.

Thus. the Applicants believe the Specification

makes an adequate disclosure of material related to gain values. and avoids the
Examiner's objections as to this issue.
In the present Office Action. the Examiner also raises an issue of
vagueness as to the differences between a frame and a subframe. as well as
what the invento'rs might consider a "component" to be.

In addition. the

12

230FH143

meaning of· the term "pre-component" is alleged to be unknown.

\

As discussed

above with relation to the introduction of proposed drawing figure 5, the
difference between a frame and a subframe is aniculated in the Specification,
and. with the addition of Fig. 5, should be more than clear.
"component" should be given its ordinary meaning:

The term

"a constituent pan."

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 270 (1988).

"Pre-components" are

introduced on page 7 of the Specification as outputs from the pitch excitation
filter state and the codebooks [Lines 25-28].

The additional labelling proposed

pursuant to this Amendment for drawing figure 1 should help to make this
even more clear.
Vector quantizing, as discussed previously with reference to new
drawing figure 6, is introduced on page 12 of the Specification, lines 4 through
8.

In addition, Gerson ('157) nifers to the concept frequently.

example, column I, lines 38-42].
ex,

/3,

[m.

for

Vector quantizing as it applies to parameters

and 1t is illustrated in Fig. 6.
The Applicants submit that the Specification and claims are now

consistent with the characterization of ex as a first parameter that relates to an
overall energy value, while

/3

is based upon a relative contribution of the first.

gain value to the overall energy value.

The term "vector" can mean an

ordered sequence. as in a sequence of excitation samples [See Gerson ('1.57),
column 1. lines 40-42].

Thus. the term "vector code" is applied to the

representative code that identifies the result of vector quantizing the
parameters ex,

/3,

and 1t.

The Examiner assens that the Specification and drawings only show
reconstructed speech and that nothing is shown to explain how the
information that is sent is coded for transmission.

First, the essential elements

of a speech decoder, as shown in Fig. 1, are identical to the. essential elements
13

230FH144

of a compatible coder.

Further, the Specification

describ~

a coder

\

embodiment in detail from page 10, line 19 to page 13, line 22.

Based upon

these reasons, and the reasons set forth above, the Applicants submit that the
Specification is enabling with respect to coding a signal for transmission,
particularly in light of the proposed new drawing figures and additional
explanatory text including with this Amendment.
Explanation of the difference between "component" and "pre.
component" has been offered above, and the claim language has been modified
pursuant to this Amendment in an effon to minimize confusion that may
result from. the use of these terms.

And a new drawing figure has been

submitted showing the claimed frame and subframe relationship.
The Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner's assenion that
the terms "gain ipformation," "components", and "energy'" have not been
adequately distinguished from each other in the Specification and claims.

The

Specification indicates that the energy in the pitch excitation and codebook
excitation signals (called pre-components) is necessary in order to determine
the amount of energy correction that will be required.

Energy correction is

accomplished through adjustment of GAIN values on a subframe by subframe
basis.

[m, page 7, line 25 through page 8, line 6].

4.

Claims 1-21 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, fIrst

paragraph, for the same reasons set forth in the objection to the Specification.
For the same reasons set forth in response to tbe Examiner's objections to the
Specification, the Applicants respectfully submit that the claims avoid the
Examiner's objections under the first paragraph of section 112.

14

230FH145

5.

Claims 1-21 have been rejected under 35

U.S.f.

112, second

paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to panicularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicants regard as the
invention.

Once again, the Examiner raises .an objection to the tenns "gain

infonnation," components," and "energy."

For the reasons set forth above, the

Applicants submit that these tenns are adequately distinguished from one
another.
Claim 1 has been amended so it no longer contains "processing" steps.
The method steps of claim 1 now carefully follow the process outlined in the
Specification, and proposed drawing figure 3 flowchans the steps of the claim
to

illustrate their interrelationship.
The language of claims 8-11 is not directed toward using a "component"

to form a "pre-col\lponent."

It should be especially clear in view of the

modified claim language (pursuant to this Amendment) that the claims recite a
method for recovering information that relates to gain

excitation

components of a signal.

information for

The method generally requires that a first

parameter relating to energy be received, followed by excitation component
definition infonnation.

This infonnation is processed to provide a pre-

component, and an associated energy value.

From the data acquired above, a

gain value is determined that can be applied to the pre-component to yield the
desired recovered excitation component of the signal.
Even allowing the term "pre-component" to be interpreted in light of
the commonly understood meaning of its prefix, there is no contradiction; precomponent infonnation is used to arrive at the excitation component.
However, in this instance the Specification provides a definition for the tenn
"pre-component,". as discussed previously, and this definition should be

15

230FH146

applied when interpreting the language of the claims.
have been cancelled pursuant to this Amendment.

Claims 13 through 19

\

The Examiner has objected to the "pitch excitation filter state" of claim
21.

Claim 21 has also been cancelled.

6.

Claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 21 have been rejected under

35 U.S.C. 101 on the ground that the claimed invention is directed toward nonstatutory subject matter.

(The Applicants assume that the Examiner meant to

reject claims 12. through 21, since claim 11 is a dependent claim).

While the

Applicants are not prepared to dispute. at this time. the Examiner's contention
that a mathematical algorithm is present. the Applicants do take exception to
the Examiner's interpretation of the second element of the "two-part test"
adopted by the Examiner.
Claims I, 7, and 8 are the only independent claims remaining for
consideration as to rejections under the above-cited section, since claims 12,
13. and 19 through 21 have been cancelled pursuant to the instant
Amendment.

Claim 1 in particular (as amended) includes essential limitations

that are arguably distinguishable from data gathering steps "which merely
determine values for the variables used in the mathematical formulae used in
making the calculations."

The method steps of claim 1 include the following:

A) providing a speech sample;
B) digitizing the speech sample to provide a
digitized speech sample;
C) determining a long term energy value for the
digitized speech sample;
D) selecting at least a portion of the digitized
speech sample to provide a selected portion of the
digitized speech sample;
[Applicants' claim 1, as amended).

These steps do not represent mere

acquisition and substitution of values.

Provision of the speech sample

16

230FH147

requires that an analog speech signal be input via an ~ppropriate transducer
(such as a microphone), and digitizing requires an analog-to-digital
conversion operation.

Establishment of the long term energy value and

arrangement of the digitized speech sample into subframes, while they may be
characterized as preparatory steps, do not merely act to provide values for
variables used in mathematical computation.

For these reasons, the Applicants

believe that claim 1 avoids the Examiners objections under section 101.
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has suggested that a claim
drawn to a process which merely uses equation solutions as one step in
achieving some result other than solution of the equations would be drawn to
statutory subject matter.

In re de Castelet, 195 U.S.P.Q. 439, 446 (1977).

Applicants maintain that that is the case here.

The

In claim 7. for example, the

method steps are directed toward transmission of first and second values.

The

first value relates to long term energy for the speech sample, while the second
value relates to short term energy.

The first value is transmitted periodically,

while the second value need be transmitted less frequently because of the
design of the Applicants' system.

Similarly, the method steps of claim 8 lead to

application of a gain value to the pre-component in order to yield a recovered
excitation component of the signal.

For the reasons set forth above, the

Applicants respectfully submit that the claims cited ab.ove are directed toward
patentable subject matter.

7.

Claims 1 through 21 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as

being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,868,867).

The

Examiner suggests that LPC information contains energy information.
actuality, however, the LPC parameters are just filter coefficients.

In

He is

17

----------- -

---

230FH148

correct. however, that block 66 computes gain factor OJ.

~hich

relates to an

overall energy value.
In attempting to draw an analogy between the "second parameter" of
the Applicants' claim 1 and the long-term LPC analysis of Davidson. the·
Examiner is again confusing LPC parameters with gain values; they are
actually filter coefficients.

If one were to draw a block diagram of an LPC

filter. one might be tempted to call the coefficients gain terms. since they are
used to multiply signals.

This, however. is not what someone "skilled in the

art" would consider gain values.
The Examiner theorizes that Davidson teaches analysis of the spectral
envelope and performs calculations from a frame of vectors which contain
gain values for each of ten frequencies.
about LPC analysis.

Again. the Examiner seems confused

The notion that LPC coefficients "contain gain values for

each of ten frequencies" is clearly incorrect.

LPC information provides filter

coefficients for an all-pole filter.
The Examiner asserts that the "long-term analysis uses the energy
located at the pitch frequency and is. therefore. also related to overall
energy."

While energy terms are typically used in LPC analysis. the overall

energy is factored out, so that the resulting LPC parameters are independent of
the overall signal energy.
With respect to clailll 7. the Examiner maintains that "since there are
more short-term coefficients than long-term coefficients. the short term
coefficients would have to be sent "more often" than the long term
coefficients."

Claim 7 is not directed toward sending more parameters. but

sending the same parameters more often.

The Examiner may also be confusing

the Applicants' '"long-term energy" with Davidson's "long-term coefficients."

18

230FH149

~._--_._-------_

..

_
~
,
.
_
-

There is no relation since, in Davidson, -"long-term" refers to a pitch
prediction filter, and the Applicants' claim is related to ~nergy.
As to claim 8's recitation of "receiving at least a first parameter," the ai's
an,d bi'S are not related to energy.
from block 35a.
of claim 8.

What the Examiner may have meant is GJ,

In any event, what Davidson does not provide for is element D

Davidson does not teach using "the energy value of the pre-

component to provide a gain value" at the receiver.

Energy values may be

computed at the encoder (transmitter) to compute the transmitted gain term,
Gj, but Davidson certainly does not compute the energy at the receiver to

generate the gain term to be utilized.

For these reasons, the Applicants

respectfully' submit that the remaining claims are distinguishable over the
prior art of record.

8.

For the reasons set forth above, allowance of claims 1 through 4,

7 through 11, and 22 through 24 is hereby respectfully solicited.

Respectfully

submitted,

IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

BY:~):~~
~. Hay;;

Attorney for Applicants
Registration No. 33,900
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

19

230FH150

./

PATENT APPLICATION
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

\

EXAMINER:

D. KNEPPER

SERIAL NO:

07/888,463

ART GROUP:

2308

FILED:

MAY 20, 1992

OOCKETNO.:

CM-00476HCOI

APPLICATION:

DIGITAL SPEECH CODER HAVING O¥fIMIZED SIGNAL ENERGY
PARAMETERS
Motorola, Inc.
Corporate Offices
1303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196
Date: May 3, 1994
AMENDMENT UNDER 37 C.F.R 1.116

Honorable 'Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
Dear Sir:

In response

10

a Final Action dated October 1, 1993 (Paper No. 18), as

entered in the above-captioned mallcr, the Applicants respectfully submit the
following Amendment.

As a result of an Examiner Interview conducted on

November 18, 1993, and documented on Paper No. 19, it has been determined
that the Amendment filed on June 11, 1993, (Papers Nos. 14 and 15) will be
entered in its entirety, with the exception of proposed Fig. 4 and its associated
descriptive text.

This drawing figure and its description are dealt with in

subsequent sections, and new claim language is proposed which the
Applicants believe may rcnder the pending claims allowable, or, at least, place
the claims in better condition for consideration on appeal.

In the Specification:
The Amendment filcd on June II, 1993, requestcd that a line of text be
added to the Brief Description of the Drawings section of the speci lication

230FH171

relating to Fig. 4.

Please ensure that that line is added to the Specification,

amended to read as follows:

--Fig. 4 is a block diagram

o~

a radio Iransmiller of

the prior art employing a speech coder;-The Amendment of June 11 also requested that a paragraph of text
descriptive of Fig. 4 be added to page 7 of the Specification.

In view of the fact

that the Applicants arc willing to concede that Fig. 4 can indeed be labelled as
"Prior Art," the associated description should be relocated and reworded
slightly.

Please ensure Ihal the description of Fig. 4, amended in small

measure, is added to the Specification on page 5, line 17, after the word
"vectors" as a new paragraph reading as follows:

--Use of a ..speech coder for

transmission of information over an RF channel is known.
this transmission process in block diagram form.

Fig. 4 illustrates

Speech samples are provided

to a speech coder (402), through an associated microphone (401).

The output of

the speech coder (403) is then coupled to a radio transmitter. (403), well-known
in the art, where the speech coder output si!,rnals are used to generate a
modulated RF carrier (4()5) thaI can be transmilled through a suitable antenna
structure

(404).--.

In the Claims:
Please amend claim 1 as follows:
I.

(Twice Amended)

A method for Iransmilling infonnation that relates to

gain information, which gain information is to be applied to excitation
information that corresponds to a speech sample. wherein the gain
information

includes:

a first gain value that relates to gain to be applied to a first excitation
component. which first excitation component represents a first voice

2

230FH172

component of the speech sample, which first voice comp~nent has a first
energy

value;
at least a second gain value that relates to gain to be applied to a second

excitation component, whieh second excitation component represents a second
voice component of the speech sample, which second voice component has a
second energy value;
the method comprising the steps of:
A) providing a speech sample:
B) digitizing the speech sample to provide a digitized speech sample;
C) determining I a long term energy value for] total energy of the
digitized speech sample

10

provide a long term energy value;

D) determining an overall energy value for a select[ing]ed [at least a]
portion of the dighized speech sample llO provide a selected portion of the
digitized speech sample];
E) providing a first parameter that relates [to an]

~

overall energy

value for the selected portion 'nf the digitized speech sample to the long term
energy

value;
F) providing a second parameter based, at least in part, upon a relative

contribution of at leasl the first gain value to the overall energy value for the
selected portion of the digitized speech sample;
G) transmitting information related to the long term energy value and
the. first and second parameters.

REMARKS

I.

Enclosed with this Amendment is a copy of drawing figure 4

marked in red to add the words ··PRIOR ART·· as suggested by the Examiner in

3

230FH173

the last Official Action.
approve

2.

this

\

The Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner

change.

Claim I has been amended to reflect the subject matter discussed

by the Examiner and (he Applicants' counsel during the Examiner Interview
of November 18. 1993.

The Applicants respectfully submit that the changes to

the claim more clearly recite the nature of the parameters that are
manipulated in the Applicants' system. and that these changes further
distinguish the Applicants' claim over the prior art upon which the Examiner
has based his rejection of the claim.

3.

The Applicants respectfully request that the subject matter of the

instant Amendment be entered. since it acts to place the Application in better
form for consideration on Appeal.

The Applicants further request that. in

view of the Examiner Interview conducted November last. and the changes
proposed by this Amendment. that the Examiner review the subject matter and
the arguments presentcd in the prior Amendment. and advise the Applicants
by Advisory Action of the Examiner'.s view of the case as it stands today.

Respectfully

submitted.

IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

By:{2L Hayes ~
J:
/J'ohn W.
{/A.ttorney for ApplIcants
Registration No. 33.900
Phone: [phone]
FAX; (708) 576·3750

4

230FH174

,

,I

,I

,
4.

The Applicants hereby petition the Commissioner to revive the

\

above-captioned Application, and to allow prosecution to continue.

Respectfully

submitted,

. IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

By:flL.,,{ ~
~ohn

W. Haye~
A:ney for Applicants
Registration No. 33,900
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

2

230FH177

UNITED STATEti DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCl:

Patent and Trademark Office

Addreee: COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
Washington, D.C. 20231

I SERIAL NUMBER I

FILING DATE

08/361,474

I

I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. I

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

12/22/94

aERSON

,

""gO'701<C2

EXAMI~ER

£!If
.

KNEPPER, I>
E3MlI0612

I

ART UNIT

JOHN W HAYES MOTOROLA
INTELLECTUAL PROP DEPT
CORPORATE OFFICES
1303 E ALGONUIN ROAD
SCHUMBURG IL 60196

2308
dATE MAILED:

06/12/95

This Is a communication lrom the examiner In charge of your application.
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS

JZf

This appllcsUon has been examined

PAPER NUMBER

19[Responsive to communication flied on ::L.l J)g, ,.,Jq't

~ This action Is made Iinal.

month(s), days from the date 01 this lener.
A shortened statutory period lor response to this action Is set to explre:$
Failure to respond within the period lor response will cause the application to become abandoned, 35 U.S.C. 133
':>
Part I THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACnON:
1. 0

Notice 01 References Cited by Examiner, PTO·892.

0

3.
5. 0
Part II

2.

Notice 01 Art Ciled by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Information on How to Effect Drawing Changes. PTO-1474..

0

4.

Notice of Draftsman's Patent Drawing Review, PTO-948.

0 Notice ollnlormal Patent Application. PTO-152.
6.0

SUMMARY OF ACnON

1.i4'

ClalmS'--.L.~_-_4-'-1+1_7-L-_·----,-I-I-I_-L).(~I--I"'y1I-'J"-,, __
~2=-L--=l=-4--,--

are pending In the application.

Of the above, c1alms

are wllhdrawn from consideration.

2.~ Clalms,_S-=-~)_&"""1)1-1 _C<~n-d--'--i-=~'--.L--'~-l'--------------3. 0

have been cancelled.

~

Clalms

F;;f'
4.=.! Claims

1_I '7 -} I
~
:r _
I

J

(!

areallowed.

be1

are rejected.

5.0 Clalms

are objected to.

8.0 Clalms,

0
,8. 0
7.

.

are subJBCtto restriction or election requirement.

This application has been flied wllh Informal drawings under 37 C.F.R. 1.85 which are acceptable for examination purposes.
Formal drawings are required In response to this OIIIce aetlon.

9.0 The corrected or substitute drawings have been received on
. Under 37 C.F.R. 1.84 these draWings
are 0 acceptable; 0 not acceptable (see explanation or Notice 01 Draltsman's Patent Drawing Review, PTO-948).
10. 0

The proposed additional or substitute sheet(s) of drawings, Illed on _~
examiner; 0 disapproved by the examiner (see explanation).

11.0 The proposed drawing correction, filed

,has been

" has (have) been

o approved;

0

approved by the

0 disapproved (see explanation).

12.0 Acknowledgement Is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119. The certified copy has
·0 been Illed in parent application, serial no.
; lIIed on

0

been received

0

not been received

~

13.0 Since this application apppears to be In condition for allowance except lor lormal matters, prosecution as to the merits Is closed In
accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 O.G. 213.
14.

0

Other

EXAMINER'S ACTION
PTOL-3H (Rev. 2193)

---------.

'

-~~--.

'-

-_._---_._----

230FH190

Page-lPaper #29

Art Unit 2308
Serial NO.: 08/361,474

\
1.

Applicant's correspondence filed on 22 December (papers 27 and

28) has been received and considered.

Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 22-24

are pending.
2.
5

Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.

§

112,

second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention.
The claim continue to be vague because they are not directed
to any specific relationships between components.

10

In all cases,

the claims are carefully worded to indicate that various values ,are
merely

"related"

or

interrelationships.

"provided"

without

any

specific

Other claim language makes 'it clear that any

and all relationships are meant to be given protection with such
language as "a selected portion", "at least in part" and "from time
15

to time."

Since the claims fail to define how the data values

relate to each other,

it cannot be positively determined how the

values are calculated.
The relationships between "total energy",
value",
20

first

parameter",

"a

second

"long term energy

"a

parameter",

"overall

energy",

"a speech sample" and a "portion of the digitized speech

sample" is unclear.

A single speech sample would merely indicate

the

continuous

amplitude of

a

specific point in time.

speech signal

(over

time)

at

a

Calculating an overall energy value such

as the zero cepstrum coefficient is known in the art but requires
25

multiple samples over time such as an analysis frame (i:e. - 10-20

230FH191

I

I

.1

Art Unit 2308
Serial NO.:
08/361,474
ms.) .

Page-2Paper #29

Multiple samples are also required to develop pitch or

spectral envelope information such as are exhibited by long term
and short term predictive techniques.

Therefore, the claims fails

to specify what type of data is being sought and the particular
5

method for deriving the desired data.
3.

3S U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
"Whoever invents or discovers ·any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore,
SUbject to the conditions and requirements of this title".

10

Applicant is referred to the rejection of claims ,1-4,

7~1-and ~

,;U·-W-under 3S USC §101 in paper #18, mailed October 1,1993, pages
2.6.

The applicant has presented no argument against this rejection
15

and therefore it is maintained.
4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms
the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth. in this Office
action:
-

20

2S

30

A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102
of this title, if the differences between the subject matter
sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time.
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability
shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention
was made.
Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as
prior art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102 of
this title, shall not preclude patentability under this
section where the subject matter and the claimed invention
were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same
person or SUbject to an obligation of assignment to the same
person.

230FH192

Page-3Paper #29

Art Unit 2308
Serial NO.:
08/361,474
5.

Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.

§

103

as being unpatentable over Davidson (4,868,867).
Applicant is referred to the body of the Final rejection of
claims 1-4, 7-11 and 22-24 in paper #18, mailed October 1, 1993,
5

pages 10-14.
The amendment to claim 1 fails to make any substantive changes
to address the previous rejection nor are any arguments presented
,to indicate why the previous rejection is overcome.
6.

10

As

indicated

in

the

Examiner's

Interview

Summary

of

18

November 1993 (paper #19), the new matter objection and rejection
was overcome because the original specification does support the
drawing changes.
7.

This

is

a

File Wrapper Continuation

earlier application S.N. 07/888,463.
15

(FWC)

of

applicant's

All claims are drawn to the

same invention claimed in-the earlier application and could have
been finally rejected on the grounds or art of record in the next
Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first
action in this

20

See M.P.E.P.

§

706.07(b}.

Applicant is

reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R.
§

25

case.

1.136(a).

A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION
IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE
EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE IS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE MAILING
DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION AND THE ADVISORY ACTION IS NOT MAILED
UNTIL AFTER THE END OF THE THREE-MONTH SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD,
THEN THE SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD WILL EXPIRE ON THE DATE THE
ADVISORY ACTION IS MAILED, AND ANY EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE

230FH193

Page-4Paper #29

Art Unit 2308
Serial NO.:
08/361,474

\
ADVISORY ACTION.
IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR
RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL
ACTION.
8.
5

Any

inquiry

concerning

this

communication

or

earlier

communications from the examiner should be directed to David D.
Knepper whose telephone number is [phone].

The examiner can

normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 07:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m.
If

attempts

unsuccessful,
10

to

reach

the examiner's

reached on (703)

305 - 9708.

the

examiner

sup~rviBor,

by

telephone

are

Allen MacDonald, can be

The facsimile phone number for this

Group is [phone] or -9565.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of
this application

~hould

be directed to the Group receptionist whose

telephone number is [phone].

15

}dtK~
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2308
June 11, 1995

230FH194

-. A(
Ht:litNtD

Gf :23C£

.'2/) ~: J

PATENTAPPLlCA~!fr
STATES ~MYf ~OO~RAD~MARK OFFICE
.
AUG 2 11995

UNITED
APPLICANTS:

IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

EXAMINER:

KNEPPER, D.

SERIAL NO.:

08/361,474

ART UNIT:

2308

FILED:

22 DECEMBER 94

CASE NO.:

CM00476HC02

ENTITLED:

DIGITAL SPEECH CODER HAVING OPTIMIZED SIGNAL ENERGY
PARAMETERS
Motorola, Inc.
Corporate Offices
. 1303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196
August 14, 1995

Honorable Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231

. AMENDMENT ANP RESPONSE
Responsive to the Office Action dated June 12, 1995 as entered in the abovecaptioned matter, the applicant hereby respectfully submits the following amendment
and response.
In The Claims:

//

.
Please cancel, without prejudice, Claims 22-24.

//
Please amend claims 1-2 and 7-10 as follows:
1. (Thrice Amended) A method for transmitting information that relates to gain
information, which gain information is to be applied to excitation information that
corresponds to a speech sample, wherein the gain information includes:
a first gain value [that relates to gain] to be applied to a first excitation
component, which first excitation component represents a first voice component of the
speech sample, which first voice component has a first energy value;

/

230FH195

-2at least a second gain value [that relates to gain] to be ~pplied to a second .
excitation component, which second excitation component represents a second voice
component of the speech sample, which second voice component has a second
energy value;
the method comprising the steps of:
A) providing a speech sample;
B) digitizing the speech sample to provide a [digitized speech sample] frame of
information comprising at least one subframe;
C) determining total energy olthe [digitized speech sample] frame Qf
informatlQn to provide a long term energy value;
D) determining an Qverall energy value for a [selected portion of the digitized

~\

speech sample] subframe Qf the at least one subframe;
E) provil;ling a first parameter, wherein the first parameter is prQportional to [that
relates] the overall energy value [for the selected portion of the digitized speech
sample] and inversely proportional to the long term energy value;
F) providing a second parameter. wherejn the second parameter is proportional
tQ the first energy Valy.e [based, at least in part, uPQn a relative cQntributiQn Qf at least
the first gain value] and inversely prQpQrtlonal to the overall energy value [for the
selected pQrtion of the digitized speech sample]; and.
G) transmitting information related to the long term energy value and the first
and second parameters.
2. (Twice Amended) The methQd Qf claim 1 wherein:
the gain infQrmatiQn includes at least a third gain value that relates to gain to be
applied to a third excitation component, which third excitatiQn component represents a
third voice component of the speech sample, which third voice component has a third
energy value;
the method includes the additional step, befQre step G), Qf:
F1)

providing a third parameter. wherein the third parameter is proportiQnal

tQ the second energy value [based, at least in part, upQn a relative cQntributiQn of at
least the first and secQnd gain values] and inversely proportional to the overall energy
value [for the selected portion of the digitized speech sample];
the step Qf transmitting infQrmatiQn includes transmission Qf informatiQn relating
tQ the third parameter.

Rev. 9/30/92

230FH196

-3-

~ (Twice Amended) A m~~hod for transmitting information that relates to gain

-

information for a speech sample, [wherein the gain informatior includes] comprising
the s:ffiB-~.Q.t
...-' A)
providing a speech sample:

/

digitizing the speech sample to provide a frame of information comprising
at least one subframe:
B)

Q)

determining a first value [that relates to] comprising a long term energy

value for the [speech sample] frame of information;
P)

determining at least a second value, wherein the second value

ia

proportional to an overall energy value [relates to a short term energy value for the
speech sample,] and inversely proportional to the long term energy value, wherein the
overall energy value is determined for a subframe of the at least one subframe:
[comprises a correction factor to be applied with the first value;
comprising the.steps of:]

f) transmitting, [from time to time] at a first rate, information relating to the
first value; anQ
[A]

[B] E) transmitting, [more often than from time to time] at a second rate more
frequent than the first rate, information relating to the second value.

II

~ (Twice Amended) A method for recovering information that relates to gain

information for excitation components of a [signal,] speech sample. wherein the
speech sample is digitized to provide a frame of information comprising at least one
subframe. the method comprising the steps of:
A)
-

receiving at least [a first]

~

parameter [that relates to] comprising a

long term energy ~ for [at least one excitation component of the signal] the frame
(if Inrormation;

/

B)
receiving excitation component definition information for [the] at least
one excitation component;
C)

processing the excitation component definition information to provide a

pre-component, which pre-eomponent has an energy value;
0)

determjnino a gain value that is proportional to [using at least] the [first

parameter] loog term eneroy value and inversely proportional to the energy value [of
the pre-eomponent to provide a gain value]; and
E)
applying the gain value to the pre-eomponent, to provide a recovered
excitation component of the [signal] speech sample.

Rev. 9/30/92

230FH197

-4-

1$ (Thric~ Amended) A method for recoverrng information that relates to gain
information for excitation components of a [signal,] speech sample. wherein the
\
speech sample is digitized to provide a frame of jnformation comprising at least one
subframe. the method comprising the steps of:
A)

receiving a radio signal;

B)
C)

demodulating the radio signal to provide a recovered signal;
extracting from the recovered signal at least [a first] ~ parameter [that

relates to] comprising a long term energy ~ for [at least one excitation component
of the signal] the frame of information;
D)

~

extracting from the recovered signal excitation component definition

information for [the] at least one excitation component;
E)

processing the excitation component definition information to provide a

pre-component, which pre-component has an energy value;
F)
determining a gain value that is proportional tQ [using at least] the [first
parameter] long term energy value and inversely proportional to the energy value [of
the pre-component to provide a gain value]; anQ
G)

applying the gain value to the pre-component to provide a recovered

component of the [sig(lal] speech sample.

1~ ,
,
r' (Thrice Amended) A radio that receives speech coded information and that

I'}

synthesizes speech in response thereto, comprising:
A)
RF means for receiving and demodulating a radio signal that includes
speech coded information;
B)
excitation source means operably coupled to the RF means for receiving
the speech coded information; and fQr:

1)

extracting from the speech coded information at least [a first]

~

~fgr [at least one
excitation component of a signal that relates to an original speech sample] !!E=,-,.,

parameter [that relates to] comprising a long term energy
\fl

.'
/

1'.,/'

information. wherein a speech sample is digitized to proVide the frame 61i'6lotmallQO " /
comprising at lea210ne subframe;
.
2)

extracting from the speech coded information excitation

component definition information for [the] at,least one excitation component;
3)
processing the excitation component definition information to

/"'"

"'e, provide a pre-component, which pre-component ~as anKnergy .value;

-"'--'Rev. 9/30/92

230FH198

-54)

determinin!J a !Jain

valu~

that is propQrtiQnal tQ [using at least] the

\-; [first parameter] IQng term energy value and inversely proPQrtiQnal tQ the/energy value
[Qf the pre-cQmpQnent to provide a gain value];
\
"
,~O
5)
applying the gain value tQ the pre-cQmpQnent tQ provid;a'·'--·>

.

'1!

" recQvered compQnent Qf the [signal] speech sample;
6)
the signal]; and.
C)

'j

i)

providing an excitatiQn signal using the recQvered cQmponent [Qf

LPC filter means for receiving the excitation signal and fQr prQviding a

synthesized speech sign~lin_.!,~_sp_o~n.:;:~~e:...:t::..:h~e~re:.::to::..:.

I

REMARKS
1.

In the above captiQned Office ActiQn, the Examiner rejected claims 7-8 under 35

U.S.C. §101. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 22-24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Davidson et al. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 22-24 were rejected,
under 35 U.S.C, § 112, second paragraph. These rejections are traversed and
recQnsideratiQn is hereby respectfully requested.
2.

Claims 22-24 have been canceled abQve. TherefQre nQ further discussion of

claims 22-24 will be presented.
3.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 22-24 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. It has been asserted that the claims "continue to be vague. because they
are not directed tQ any specific relationships between cQmpQnents." In particular, "the
relationships between 'total energy', 'IQng term energy', 'a first parameter', 'a second
parameter', 'overall energy', 'a speech sample', and 'a pQrtiQn Qf the digitized speech
sample' " were cited as unclear.
Regarding the terms "total energy" and "long term energy value", the applicants
note that these terms, as used in claim 1, represent the same thing. That is, claim 1
calls fQr the "total energy" to be determined "to provide [the]IQng term energy value".
These terms represent Eq(O) as described, for example, on page 9, lines 1-2.
Regarding the terms "a first parameter", "a second parameter", and "Qverall
energy", claims 1, and 7-10 have been amended above to more clearly recite their
respective relatiQnships. In particular, the first parameter (in accQrdance with page 11,
lines 12-16) is claimed as "proportional to the overall energy value and inversely
propQrtional to the long term energy value". Expressed as an equatiQn, this states:
Rev. 9/30/92

l.\

'2",
,-'

230FH199

-6-

a

0<:

Overall Energy

val", <.-

(1)\

Eq(O)
which in turn yields:

a . E q (0)

0<:

Overall Energy valiAl- (2)

Eq. (2) expresses the relationship described on page 11, lines 12-16 when one
recognizes that the overall energy value is the sum of the pitch and excitation energies
for a subframe (page 11, lines 27-31).
This relationship is more readily seen using the equations given for GAIN 1 or
GAIN 2. The equation for GAIN 1 is given on page 9:
,---

GAIN 1 =

EEaf3
\ Ex (0)

(3)

Expressed in this form, the relationship described on page 9, lines 24-27 that "the term
EE (the estimate of the subframe residual energy based on the long term signal
energy [Eq(O)]) is scaled by a to match the short term energy in the excitation signal" is
more clearly seen. EE, the estima.te of the residual energy for a subframe, is described
on page 8. Substitution for EE yields:

GAIN 1 =

where:

(F.P.G .)(N_SUBS)
Ex(O)

(4)

F.P.G. and N_SUBS are the filter power gain and number of
subframes per frame, respectively, described on page 9.

Thus, if the bold-faced portion (which is nothing more than EEa) of Eq. (4) is used in
Eq. (2), the proportionality of Eq. (2) is replaced by equivalence:

Rev. 9/30/92

\

\

230FH200

-7-

a.

q

0

E ( )
(F.F.G ')(N_SUBS)

= Overall

Energy

yatfAe

(5)

which can be re-written as:
(()vr, 'I!! 011<:;'jy ViI
f&;"e~-H-'l!:lle!IJ~

a=

/l.(e)(f. fG.){.AI_S'ftl»
Y~lli:'re'.O.)(U

Eq(O)

SUDS)

(6)

Thus, it can be seen that the claimed relationship between the first parameter, the long
term energy value, and the overall energy value is accurately stated.
Likewise, the second parameter is claimed as "proportional to the first energy
value and inversely proportional to the overall energy value",' This relationship is
directly supported on page 11, lines 17-21.
Regarding the terms "a speech sample", and "a portion of the digitized speech
sample", the applicants note that the claims, as amended above, now use the terms
"frame of information" and "subframe" to describe the digitized versions of the speech
sample (page 8, lines .14-19). It has been noted in the rejection that the term "speech
sample" is often recognized as the "amplitude of a continuous speech signal (over
time) at a specific point in time." Notwithstanding this observation, the applicants
submit that the cited portion of the specification makes it clear how a speech sample is
related to frames and subframes in the context of the present invention.
In light of the above discussion, the applicants respectfully submit that claims 14 and 7-11 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and are
therefore in suitable condition for allowance.
4.

Claims 7-8 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 on the ground that they

are directed to non-statutory subject matter, In particular, it has been asserted that:
Claim 8 merely receives information in the form of data ("parameters")
and processes the data. Again, no specific manipulation or method is
claimed, ensuring that any and all mathematical relationships are
included....The only input to the claims is the vague statement that a
'value' (claim 7) or 'parameter' (claim 8) relates to some type of
information. The only operative language on these numbers is the
claimed 'transmitting' .... No steps developed the claimed data to
provide any details or relationships to physical elements or
measurements. The claims are directed to pure numbers. The only
suggested relationship is that the numbers are related to 'gain
Rev, 9/30/92

230FH201

-8information' for 'speech' or 'excitation'. The claims carefully recite that
the numbers are only related to speech through an energy value making
it clear that the method is only limited to the manipulation of the data
values rather than any particular operation on a speec~ signal.
Claims 7 and 8 have been significantly amended above. As amended, both claims 7
(step D) and 8 (step D) include a "specific manipulation" which does not ensure that
"any and all mathematical relationships are included." Both claims 7 (steps A-D) and 8
(preamble and step A) recite specific inputs ("a speech sample" and "at least one
parameter comprising ...", respectively) upon which various operations are
performed.
Perhaps most significantly, both claims 7 and 8 are amended to include "details
or relationships to physical elements or measurements". These relationships, as
claimed, are discussed in section 3 above. Claim 7 recites how the second value is
proportional to an overall energy value and inversely proportional to a long term
energy value, the overall energy value and long term energy value respectively
determined for a subframe and frame which, in turn, are derived from the speech
sample. Claim 8 explicitly recites that a gain value is proportional to a long term
energy value and inversely proportional to an energy value of a pre-component; the
gain value and pre-component being used to provide an excitation component of a
speech sample.
The applicants assert that claims 7 and 8, as amended above, include elements
and limitation that direct the claims toward patentable subject matter, which claims
therefore overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For this reason, the
applicants respectfully submit that claims 7 and 8 are in suitable condition for
allowance.
5.

Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 22-24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being

unpatentable over Davidson et al. In sustaining the final rejection made on the same
grounds in paper #18, mailed October 1, 1993, it has been asserted that the first and
second parameters of the present invention were taught by the LPC analysis of
Davidson et al. In refuting the applicant's previous argument that such an equivalence
is in error, it has been stated:

Rev.

The applicant argues that Linear Predictive Coefficients (LPC) are not
related to energy values. This is not true.... When the LPC's are
derived, however, the presence of energy is necessary. If no energy is in
a signal or more energy is present in some frequency bands as opposed
to others, then this will cause the LPC's to vary. So, although LPC's are
9/3~ directly related to overall energy, they are related to energy and how
it varies in some fashion. Since the claims do not indicate specific

230FH202

-9relationships or calculations. the smallest relationship to energy is
sufficient to preempt the claims. (emphasis added)
While not agreeing with this argument, the applicants note that claims 1 and 7-10, as
amended above, do indicate "specific relationships" between energy values and the
claimed parameters. Claims 1 and 7 specifically recite that parameters are
proportional and inversely proportional to various energy values. The LPC
parameters cited in Davidson et al. cannot be reasonably construed to encompass
these claimed limitations. Furthermore, claims 8-10 specifically claim a gain value that
is not only proportional to a received long term energy value, but is also inversely
proportional to an energy value for the pre-component which the gain is applied to.
Nowhere in Davidson et al. is it taught, nor even suggested, that such a gain value be
based on the energy of the component it is supposed to scale. For these reasons, the
applicants respectfully submit that claims 1 and 7-10 are neither anticipated by, nor
made obvious from, Davidson et al. and are therefore in suitable condition for
allowance.
Claims 2-4 and 11 are dependent upon claims 1 and 10, respectfully, which
claims have been shown allowable above. Therefore, for both this reason, and also
because claims 2-4 and 11 introduce additional SUbject matter that, particularly when
considered in the context of the recitations of claims 1 and 10, respectfully, constitute
patentable subject matter, the applicant respectfully submits that claims 2-4 and 11 are.
in proper condition for allowance..
6.

The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned by telephone or facsimile if

the Examiner believes that such a communication may advance the prosecution of the
present application.

'.....,..,l1li
..........._ ..
-..................
111 .....

Respectfully submitted,
IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

................1Il

•

...,......

~M_
~p#: Is-i

1ge5

/lI~ !~l:.

By~f~
Christopher P. Moreno
Agent for Applicants
Registration No. 38,566
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Rev. 9/30/92

230FH203

10-17-95 ;12:28PM

SENT BY:

703 308 5356;# 21 4

MOTOROLA IPO"

\. PATENT APPLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICANTS:

IRA A. GERSON ET AL.,.

EXAMINER:

KNEPPER, D.

SERIAL NO.:

08/361,474

ART UNIT:

2308

FILED:

22 DECEMBER 94

CASE NO.:

CM00476HC02

ENTITLED:

DIGITAL SPEECH CODER HAVING OPTIMIZED SIGNAL ENERGY
PARAMETERS

Motorola. Inc.
Corporate Offices
'303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, IL 60196
October 17, 1995
Honorable Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231

PROPOSED RESPONSE
Responsive to the Advisory Action dated August 25, 1995 as entered in the
above-captioned matter, the applicant hereby respectfully submits the following
proposed response.

REMARKS
1.

I" the above captioned Advisory Action, the applicant's amendment-atter-final

filed August 16, 1995 not entered and the final rejection (Office Action dated June 12,
1995) of claims 1-4. 7-11. and 22-24 was maintained. The applicants submit that their
amendments made in the August 16, 1995 response have been misinterpreted, and
that the amendments made therein put the application in suitable form for allowance,
or in the alternative, placed the daims in better form for appeal.
2.
The applicants first note that claims 22-24 were canceled by the August 16.
1985 response. Therefore no further discussion of claims 22-24 will be presented.

230FH206

10-17-85 ;12:28PM

MOTOROLA IPn.. .

703 308 5356;# 3/ 4

-23.
In the August 16, 1995 response, amendments were made to claims 1-2 and 710 which the applicants believe place the claims in condition for allowance or in better
form for appeal. The amendments made to these claims may be generally categorized
as follows: (I) addition of "frame" and "subframe" limitations to claims 1-2 and 7-10; (ii)
addition of "proportional" and "inversely proportional" limitations to claims 1-2 and 710; and (iii) addition of "gain value that is proportional to the long term energy value
and inversely proportional to the energy value" limitation to claims 8-10.
Regarding (i), the added "frame" and "subframe" limitations are nothing more
than a reflection of that which was originally disclosed in the specification. In
particular, it is stated on page 8, lines 14-19 that "[flor the purposes of this description,
it will be presumed that an original speech sample will be digitized, and ... divided as
necessary into frames and subframes, all in accordance with well understood prior art
technique." Furthermore, the applicants assert that the inclusion of the "frame" and
"subframe" language reflects the language used in the rejection of June 12, 1995.
where, in objecting to the use of the phrase "speech sample", it was noted that the
usual terminology calls for "an analysis frame". Thus, the amendments to add the
"frame" and "subframe" limitations are seen to not only add that which was originally
disclosed, but to also reflect that which was inherently "suggested" in the rejection_
Regarding (ii), it would appear that a significant misinterpretation of the claim
terminology exists. Claims 1-2, and 7 refer to a "total energy ", a "long term energy
value". and an "overall energy value"; claims 8-10 refer to the "long term energy
value". It has been asserted in the Advisory ActIon that the arguments presented in the
August 16, 1995 response regarding the terms "overall energy" and "long term energy"
are contradictory because "these energies cannot be the same and also be related in
different proportions tgJ;mother value." However, as noted in the August 16, 1995
response. the terms \ota(1energy" and "long term energy value" are equivalent; no
such equivalence bet~ee~ "o~~ral~energy" and "long term energy" has ever been
stated. In furtherance of this misinterpretation, it has also been asserted in the
Advisory Action that "the applicant intands for 'total energy' to be different than loverall
energy'. These terms were previously considered to have an equivalent meaning. It
would be a new consideration to now Interpret such similar language as having
different meanings." While it Is true that the applicants intend for "total energy" to be
different from "overall energy". they vigorously assert that neither the specification or
claims as originally filed. or any of the subsequent amendments have ever stated an
eqUivalence between "total energy" and "overall energy". As SUCh, the applicants
submit that interpreting "total energy" as non-equivalent to "overall energy" does not
Rev. 9130/92

230FH207

10-17-85 ;12:28PM

SENT BY:

703 308 5356;# 4/4

MOTOROLA IPD....

-3comprise a new consideration, but rather reflects the teachin~s of the present
inventio/'J as consistently presented by the applicants.
In light of the above, the applicants further assert that the use of the terms
"proportional" and "inversely proportional" are not contradictory. Rather, these terms
accurately reflect. in claims 1-2 and 7, the relationships between the first, second and
third parameters to the overall energy value and the long term energy value; and in
claims 8-10, the relationship between the gain value to the long term energy value and
the energy value for the pre-component.
Regarding (iii), as alluded to in the previous paragraph, claims 8-10 particularly
claim the relationship between a gain value to a long term energy value and an
energy value for a pre-component. The claimed relationships can be readily seen
through the GAIN 1 (or GAIN 2) formulas as ellplalned in the August 16, 1995
response. Although the Advisory Action did not address these amendments, the
applicants submit that the claimed relationships constitute patentable subject matter.
3.

The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned by telephone

Ot

facsimile if

the Examiner believes. that such a communication may advance the prosecution of the
present application.
Respectfully submitled,
IRA A. GERSON ET AL.

By

-=-~---:-_::::-"":~

_

Christopher P. Moreno
Agent for Applicants
Registration No. 38,566

Phone: (708)

576~6942

Fax: [phone]

Rsv.9/30192

230FH208

10-17-95 ;12:28PM

SENT BY:

MOTOROLA IPD-+

703 308 5356;# 1/ 4

FAX MESSAGE TRANSMITIAL
MOTOROLA, INC.
Schaumburg Intellectual Property Department
Schaumburg, Illinois
Fax: (708) 576*3750
FAX COveR SHEET
DATE:

October 17, 1995

TO:

Examiner D. Knepper I Group 2308

FAX#:

[phone]

FROM:

Christopher P. Moreno I Reg. No. 38,566

RE: .

Proposed response for upcoming interview.

APPLICANTS:
SERIAL NO.:
FILED:
ENTITLED:

Ira A. Gerson at al.
EXAMINER: Knepper. D.
08/361,474
ART UNIT: 2308
22 December 94
CASE NO.: CM00476HC02
DIGITAL SPEECH CODER HAVING OPTIMIZED SIGNAL
. ENERGY PARAMETERS

CERTIFICATION OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
I hereby certify that this paper is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and
Trademark Office on the date shown below.
Christopher P, Moreno
Type or print name of person signing certification

~f.~
Signature

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE:
IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE
CALL: (70B) 576-6942 (Chris)
~:

This faClllml1e transmIssion may contain Information that Is confidential, privileged or
elle/Tll' from disclosure under applicable law, I t Is Intended only for the person to whom it Is
addressed. Unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or distribution may expose you to legal
liability. If you have r~lved this transmission In error, please immediately notify UB by telephone
(collect) to arrange for return of the documents received and lIfIy copies made.

230FH209