Ex Parte Doss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

10810082 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT L. DOSS JR., DAVID LASHLEY, and BILLY J.
WORLEY
____________

Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-27. Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

INVENTION
This invention relates to systems and methods for reducing squealing
or feedback on amplified telephones. (Spec. 1). Claims 1 and 19,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A telephone system, comprising:
a transmitter in communication with a transmit signal
path;
a receiver in communication with a receive signal path,
the receiver having associated therewith a receiver gain;
a receiver gain detector configured to detect the receiver
gain, the telephone system having a receiver stability level
associated therewith; and
a controller in communication with the receiver gain
detector, the controller being configured to selectively operate
the telephone system in a full duplex mode in response to the
receiver gain being approximately less than the receiver
stability level and to selectively operate the telephone system in
an adaptive duplex mode in response to the receiver gain being
approximately above the receiver stability level, the adaptive
duplex mode being such that an adaptive attenuation level
alternately applied on the receive signal and transmit signal
paths is dependent upon the level by which the receiver gain
exceeds the receiver stability level.
(Disputed limitation emphasized).
Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
3

19. An adaptive duplexing method, comprising:
detecting a receiver gain level selected by a user on a
telephone, the telephone having a receiver stability level
associated therewith; and
controlling the telephone to selectively operate in full
duplex in response to the receiver gain level being
approximately less than the receiver stability level and to
selectively operate in adaptive duplex in response to the
receiver gain being at least the receiver stability level, the
adaptive duplex being such that an adaptive attenuation level
alternately applied on a receive signal path and a transmit signal
path of the telephone is dependent upon a level by which the
receiver gain level exceeds the receiver stability level.
(Disputed limitation emphasized).

REJECTION
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Naddell (U.S. Patent 5,450,618) in view of Arnaud (U.S.
Patent Re. 36,934).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of
the rejection of claims 1-18 on the basis of claims 1 and 10 respectively.
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7), we will decide the
appeal of the rejection of claims 19-27 on the basis of claim 19. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
4
ANALYSIS
A.
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the
cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or
suggested:
the controller being configured to selectively operate the
telephone system in a full duplex mode in response to the
receiver gain being approximately less than the receiver
stability level and to selectively operate the telephone
system in an adaptive duplex mode in response to the
receiver gain being approximately above the receiver
stability level,

within the meaning of claim 1, and the similar language of claim 10?
Appellants contend:
With respect to the full duplex mode, Naddell's controller
operates the telephone system in a full duplex mode not only in
response to the user depressing the mode button 106, but also
regardless of the volume level setting (e.g., the receiver gain, as
recited in independent claim 1), and thus certainly not in
response to the receiver gain being approximately less than the
receiver stability level, as generally recited in independent
claim 1.
. . .
With respect to the half duplex mode, Naddell's
controller similarly operates the telephone system in a half
duplex mode purely and exclusively in response to the mode
button being not depressed (i.e., in an extended position) by the
user, and not in response to the receiver gain being
approximately above the receiver stability level.
(App. Br. 5-6).

Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
5
The Examiner disagrees:
Naddell sets the telephone to a particular volume level when the
mode switch is depressed, and causes the telephone to operate
in full-duplex mode. As discussed supra, because these two
variables change together, they have an ambiguous cause-and-
effect relationship. A designer may intend for the resulting
volume to require a particular communication mode, or vice
versa. Regardless of which intention a designer favors, the
disclosed invention corresponds to the claimed invention.
(Ans. 13).
Appellants' arguments are persuasive because claim 1 expressly
requires that the controller is configured to operate in full or adaptive duplex
mode "in response to the receiver gain being" less than or above the receiver
stability level, respectively. In contrast, Naddell's controller is configured to
operate the telephone system in response to the user setting the position of
the volume/mode button. (Naddell col. 2, l. 64 to col. 3, l. 8; App. Br. 5-6).
For this reason, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of
claim 10, which has similar language. Associated dependent claims 2-9 and
11-18 stand therewith.

B.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"controlling the telephone to selectively operate in full duplex in response to
the receiver gain level being approximately less than the receiver stability
level and to selectively operate in adaptive duplex in response to the receiver
gain being at least the receiver stability level," within the meaning of claim
19?
Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
6
Appellants contend:
Independent [claim] 19 recite[s] elements similar to those
discussed above with reference to independent claim 1. Thus
the discussion above similarly applies to independent claims 10
and 19 and is not repeated herein for purposes of clarity.
(App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 7).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants'
arguments regarding claim 1 are not commensurate with the broader scope
of claim 19. Specifically, method claim 19 does not require a controller to
perform the controlling step. As such, it would have been obvious for
Naddell's user to perform the limitation at issue by controlling the telephone
to operate in a duplex mode in response to the receiver stability level
(feedback/squeal level) by setting Naddell's volume/mode button if/when the
user hears feedback/squeal from the telephone.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 and
of claims 20-27, which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2010-005714
Application 10/810,082
7
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tkl