Cochlear Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2020

15143183 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/143,183 04/29/2016 Michael Goorevich 3065.0311CN2 4334
110239 7590 10/05/2020
Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd., Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
FALEY, KATHERINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL GOOREVICH and KYRIAKY GRIFFIN
____________

Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–19, and 21–23. Claims 3, 9, and 20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Cochlear Limited, is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183

2
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows. Independent claims
11 and 19 recite similar subject matter:
1. A method performed by a hearing system for processing
audio signals, comprising:
analyzing a first audio signal and a second audio signal to
determine a first directional signal and a second directional
signal;
analyzing at least one of the first directional signal to
determine a first sound environment or the second directional
signal to determine a second sound environment; and
based on at least one of the first sound environment or
the second sound environment, determining a third audio signal
from the first and second directional signal with a beamformer.
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 2, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C.
112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
Claims 2, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–13, 15, 17, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Allegro-Baumann (US
2007/0269064 A1, published Nov. 22, 2007).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allegro-Baumann as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, and 12
above, and further in view of Kremer (US 2004/0078199 A1, published
Apr. 22, 2004).
Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183

3
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allegro-Baumann as applied to claims 1, 7, 11, and 17
above, and further in view of Boretzki (US 2013/0322669 A1, published
Dec. 5, 2013).
ANALYSIS2
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments raised in the Briefs.3
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings, legal
conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in response to
Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Appellant contends, the “claimed ‘first directional signal’ and ‘second
directional signal’ are different from any type of beamformed signals (i.e.,
signals generated by a beamformer or beamforming operations).” Appeal
Br. 13; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner determines Allegro-Baumann discloses:
Fig. 10: audio signals S1 and S2; para 0123: “possible to
control the beam former such that first, a first preferred
direction (or, more general, a first directional characteristic) is
selected, and then a second preferred direction (or, more
general, a second directional characteristic) is selected”)
Final Act. 4.

2 We pro forma affirm the rejections of claims 2, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs (see Final Act. 3–4), which were not
contested by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 9–17.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 4–8, 10, 12–18 and 21–
23. Except for our ultimate decision, these rejections of these claims is not
discussed further herein.
Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183

4
In other words, the Examiner equates Allegro-Baumann’s audio
signals S1 and S2 to the claimed first and second directional signals,
respectively.
In particular, the Examiner determines, and we agree:
As to Allegro-Baumann, the beamformed signals S1 and S2 are
indeed separate and distinct from the beamforming operation of
transfer function G, however, the signals S1 and S2 can still be
said to be directional signals. Further, it is reasonable to
interpret beamformed signals as being directional signals
because beamformed signals are associated with a direction.
Specifically, Allegro-Baumann, defines beamforming in para
0068 as “tailoring the amplification of an electrical signal (also
referred to as “audio signals”) with respect to an acoustical
signal (also referred to as “acoustical sound”) as a function of
direction of arrival of the acoustical signal relative to a
predetermined spatial direction.” Para 0120 of Allegro-
Baumann describes the beamformers BF1 and BF2, which
create S1 and S2 (which Examiner relies upon as teaching the
“directional signals), as being “adjusted to form a desired
directional characteristic, i.e., the directional characteristic is
set by means of the beam former.” As can be seen from
Allegro-Baumann, the beamformed signals S1 and S2 are most
definitely directional signals, and therefore, Allegro-Baumann
teaches the “directional signals” of the claims.
Ans. 9–10 (emphasis in original).
Allegro-Baumann explicitly discloses “the transfer function G may
use a beam former.” Allegro-Baumann, ¶ 143.
Further, Appellant contends, “claim 1 recites three (3) different
signals, namely a ‘first directional signal,’ ‘a second directional signal,’ and
a ‘third audio signal.’ The ‘third audio signal’ is generated from the ‘first
and second directional signal[s] with a beamformer.’” Reply Br. 5.
Allegro-Baumann’s modified Figure 10, with annotations, is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183

5

Modified Figure 10 is a block diagram illustrating a hearing system.
The Examiner determines Allegro-Baumann discloses the claimed
third audio signal in “Fig. 10: various audio signals in transmission unit 20;
output audio signal 7 all based on classification data).” Final Act. 8.
In other words, the Examiner equates Allegro-Baumann’s audio
output signal 7 to the claimed third audio signal. We agree with the
Examiner because giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, the Examiner has properly found that the
claimed “first and second directional signals” and “the third audio signal”
limitations are respectively met by Allegro-Baumann’s audio S1, S2, and
output audio signal 7 (Allegro-Baumann ¶¶ 52, 120, 123, and 143; see
modified Figure 10), as shown above in Figure 10 of Allegro-Baumann.
Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183

6
Accordingly, we agree with the decisions reached by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–13,
15, 17, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
CONCLUSION
We pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 16, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lacking written description.
We pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 16, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for being indefinite.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–13, 15, 17,
19, 22, and 23 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8, 14, and 18 as being
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 16, 21 112, ¶ 1 Written Description 2, 16, 21
2, 16, 21 112, ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 2, 16, 21
1, 4, 5, 7, 10–
13, 15, 17,
19, 22, 23
102(b) Allegro-Baumann 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–
13, 15, 17,
19, 22, 23

6, 14, 103(a) Allegro-Baumann,
Kremer
6, 14
8, 18 103(a) Allegro-Baumann,
Boretzki
8, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8, 10–
19, 21–23

Appeal 2019-003820
Application 15/143,183

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED