Ex Parte GRAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12580888 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/580,888 10/16/2009
86107 7590 09/26/2016
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (GN Resound)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karl-Fredrik Johan GRAN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GNRP1712 US 1346
EXAMINER
MCCARTY, TAUNYA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARL-FREDRIK JOHAN GRAN and GUILIN MA
Appeal2015-006091
Application 12/580,888 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8 and 10-21. Claim 9 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify GN ReSound A/Sas the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-006091
Application 12/580,888
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Appellants' invention relates to reduction of bias problems in a
hearing aid with adaptive feedback cancellation. Spec. 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hearing aid comprising:
a microphone for converting sound into an audio input
signal;
a hearing loss processor;
an adaptive feedback suppressor configured for generation
of a feedback suppression signal by modelling a feedback signal
path of the hearing aid;
a subtractor coupled to an output of the adaptive feedback
suppressor, wherein the subtractor is configured for subtracting
the feedback suppression signal from the audio input signal, and
outputting a feedback compensated audio signal to the hearing
loss processor, and wherein the hearing loss processer is
configured for processing the feedback compensated audio
signal in accordance with a hearing loss of a user of the hearing
aid·
'
a synthesizer configured for generation of a synthesized
signal based at least on a sound model and the audio input signal,
wherein the sound model is based on linear prediction analysis;
and
a receiver for generating an output sound signal based at
least on the synthesized signal.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10-13, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view ofKlinkby (US 2006/0291681 Al; Dec. 28,
2006) and Romesburg (US 6,163,608; Dec. 19, 2000).
Claims 2-8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Klinkby, Romesburg, and Lunner (US
2009/0034768 Al; Feb. 5, 2009).
2
Appeal2015-006091
Application 12/580,888
Claims 14, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Klinkby, Romesburg, and Steenhagen (US
5,710,822; Jan. 20, 1998).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Klinkby teaches each limitation of claim 1 except
the claimed "synthesizer," for which the Examiner cites Romesburg. Final
Act. 2--4. As cited by the Examiner, Klinkby teaches a "hearing aid having a
feedback cancellation system with improved-feedback cancellation and
adaptation properties." Klinkby i-f 12. As a teaching or suggestion of the
claimed synthesizer, the Examiner cites Romesburg's teachings of a noise-
modeling and generation processor with a "sample-based autoregressive
moving-average comfort noise model." Final Act. 3--4 (quoting Romesburg
col. 11, 11. 32-34; citing Romesburg Figs. 2A, 2B, col. 10, 11. 4---6, col. 11, 11.
32--43).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Klinkby teaches the
claimed hearing loss processor, as required by claim 1 and similarly required
by claim 14. App. Br. 7-8, 10. Specifically, Appellants argue just because
Klinkby discloses a feedback cancelling system, "it does not mean that there
is a processor that processes feedback compensated audio signal in
accordance with a hearing loss of a user," as claimed. App. Br. 7; Reply Br.
5. Appellants argue, "the processor [ofKlinkby] could compensate for
hearing loss first, and then the output of the processor is processed by the
feedback cancelling system to cancel feedback." Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner (see Ans.
20) that Klinkby teaches a processor as recited in claims 1 and 14. As cited
3
Appeal2015-006091
Application 12/580,888
by the Examiner, Klinkby describes "a signal processor for processing a
processor input signal derived from an acoustic input and a feedback
cancellation signal" (Klinkby i-f 18 (emphasis added); accord Klinkby i-f 12;
compare Klinkby i-f 12 ("a subtraction node for subtracting a feedback
cancellation signal from the electrical input signal thereby generating a
processor input signal"), with Spec. 6 ("subtractor 18 ... for subtracting the
feedback suppression signal 16 from the audio input signal 6, the subtractor
18 consequently outputting a feedback compensated audio signal 20 to an
input of the hearing loss processor 8"). Appellants' arguments that Klinkby
"could" teach different arrangements (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4---6) or that
Klinkby teaches processing "error signal e(n), not the feedback
compensation signal s(n)" (Reply Br. 5-6) misrepresent the cited teachings
of Klinkby and do not substantively address the Examiner's findings.
We also disagree with Appellants' arguments that Romesburg fails to
teach, and in fact teaches away from, the claimed synthesizer. Appellants
argue Romesburg teaches that a "first-order autoregressive" sound model is
preferable to a sound model based on linear prediction analysis, and
"Romesburg does not even state that linear prediction analysis is an
alternative choice for implementing its device." App. Br. 6-7.
As recognized by the Examiner (Ans. 18), however, Appellants'
Specification states that linear predictive coding technology is "based on
Auto Regressive (AR) modeling which in fact models the generation of
speech signals very accurately." Spec. 9; see also Spec. 9-10 ("Linear
predictive coding is based on modeling the signal of interest as an all pole
signal."; "If the excitation signal is white, Gaussian distributed noise, the
signal is called [an] Auto Regressive (AR) process."); App. Br. 14 (claim 13
4
Appeal2015-006091
Application 12/580,888
reciting a "white noise generator"). Further, Romesburg's statement that a
first-order autoregressive sound model provides performance equal to that of
a tenth-order autoregressive model used in most modem linear predictive
coding based voice encoders does not teach away from linear predictive
coding (Romesburg col. 11, 11. 40-43); the statement evidences that linear
predictive coding is known and effective. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a
reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
the alternative).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as
well as claims 2-8, 10-13, and 16-19 which depend from claim 1 and are
not argued independently.
Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claims 14 and 15 because nothing in Steenhagen discloses or suggests
modifying an error input to a feedback suppressor based on a sound model
that is the same sound model based on which the synthesizer generates the
synthesized signal. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants contends the filter cited in
Steenhagen "does not modify any error input to any feedback suppressor"
(App. Br. 9; accord Reply Br. 7-8).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive, as Appellants do not
substantively address the combined teachings of the references as cited by
the Examiner (see Final Act. 12-14; Ans. 22). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references"). The Examiner cites Steenhagen in combination with
Klinkby and Romesburg, with Klinkby disclosing a feedback suppressor.
5
Appeal2015-006091
Application 12/580,888
Final Act. 12-14. The Examiner explains (Ans. 22) that the combined
teachings of Steenhagen and Klinkby teach the disputed limitation of claim
14, and neither Appellants' Appeal Brief nor Appellants' Reply Brief rebuts
the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings. Accordingly, we
disagree with Appellants and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14
and 15, as well as claims 20 and 21 which depend from claim 14 and are not
argued independently.
Having considered the Examiner's rejections in light of each of
Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. To the contrary, we agree
with the Examiner and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-8 and 10-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6