Ex Parte Jenison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

12955343 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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.
12/955,343 11/29/2010 Rick Lynn Jenison 960296.01108.P100334US01 7315
27114 7590 12/20/2016
WARF/MKE/QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
DABNEY, PHYLESHA LARVINIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICK LYNN JENISON, KEITH RAYMOND KLUENDER, and
JOSHUA MICHAEL ALEXANDER
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,3431
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Purdue
Research Foundation as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a system and
method for selective enhancement of speech signals “to improve speech
recognition by individuals and automated processes.” Spec. 1 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A hearing aid system configured to be coupled with an ear
of an individual to selectively enhance an acoustic signal to be
received by the ear of the individual, comprising:
a microphone configured to receive the acoustic signal and
generate an analog electrical signal responsive thereto;
an analog-to-digital converter configured to receive the
analog electrical signal and convert the analog electrical signal
into a digital input signal;
a signal processor configured to receive the digital input
signal and programmed to:
divide the digital input signal into a plurality of
spectral channels having associated unenhanced signals;
identify a first subset of the spectral channels
having associated unenhanced signals
corresponding to a pathological response range of
the ear of the individual;
identify a second subset of the spectral
channels having associated unenhanced signals
outside the pathological response range of the ear of
the individual;
perform enhancement processing on the first
subset of the spectral channels and not perform
enhancement processing on any of the second
subset of the spectral channels; and
combine the plurality of enhanced signals
associated with each of the first subset of the spectral
channels and the unenhanced signals associated with each
of the second subset of the spectral channels to form a
selectively enhanced output signal; and
2
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
an output device configured to receive the selectively
enhanced output signal and communicate the selectively
enhanced output signal to the individual.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Kluender US 6,732,073 B1 May 4,2004
Paludan-Mueller US 2008/0144869 A1 June 19, 2008
REJECTIONS2
Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act.
3-5.
Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 5—6.
Claims 1—4 and 15—19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Paludan-Mueller. Final Act. 6—9.
Claims 5—14 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Paludan-Mueller in view of Kluender. Final Act.
10-14.
2 Additionally, the Examiner objected to a proposed amendment to the
Specification. Final Act. 2. Although Appellants request that the objection
be removed, objections are beyond the scope of our review. Therefore, we
do not consider whether the objection was proper.
3
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
Section 112 Rejections
The Examiner rejected claim 4 as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement. Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 16—20. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the Specification does not teach a person of ordinary skill in
the art how to make “the output device . . . communicates the . . . output
signal, to the individual through the ear” when the output device is a
cochlear implant. Final Act. 4 (emphasis added).
The Examiner’s rejection is premised on the incorrect version of claim
1. In an Amendment dated August 15, 2014, Appellants amended claim 1,
from which claim 4 depends, to remove the phrase “through the ear.” See
Amendment dated August 15, 2014 at 2; see also App. Br. A-l (Claims
App ’x). Because the rejection focuses on a limitation that is no longer in the
claims, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Similarly, the Examiner rejected claim 4 as being indefinite for
substantially the same reason. See Final Act. 6 (“It is not understood how a
cochlear implant would be fashioned such that it communicates an output
signal through an individual’s ear”) (emphasis added). Because claim 1
was amended to remove the limitation through the ear of the individual, we
are persuaded that the Examiner erred.
4
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 4
under section 112.
Prior Art Rejections
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Paludan-Mueller
discloses selectively enhancing particular3 channels as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 12—15. Specifically, Appellants argue that Paludan-Mueller
discloses “that all frequency bands are adjusted or enhanced.” App. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds Paludan-Mueller discloses identifying both a first
subset of channels and a second subset of channels and enhancing the first
set of channels and not enhancing the second set of channels. Final Act. 7
(citing Paludan-Mueller Fig. 2), 17 (citing Paludan-Mueller || 6 (lines 1—3),
43). The Examiner further finds that Paludan-Mueller Figure 2 shows the
same features disclosed in Figure 4 of the Specification. Ans. 21—22.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Paludan-Mueller teaches a single processor configured to “perform
enhancement processing on the first subset of the spectral channels and not
3 We note that claim 1 does not recite “selectively enhancing.” See App. Br.
A-l (Claims App’x). However, we agree with Appellants that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the perform enhancement step requires some
channels to be enhanced and other distinct channels not to be enhanced, i.e.,
selective enhancement.
5
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
perform enhancement processing on any of the second subset of the spectral
channels” as recited in claim 1. Although paragraph 6 teaches dividing the
signal in to a large number of frequency bands, there is no disclosure of
enhancing fewer than all of the bands. See Paludan-Mueller | 6. Similarly,
although paragraph 43 discloses splitting the sound signal into a number of
frequency bands so that each band can be adjusted individually, Paludan-
Mueller fails to disclose not adjusting at least one of the bands. See
Paludan-Mueller 143. Instead, as shown in Figure 2, all of the signal bands
are, to some extent, enhanced.
We also do not find that the comparison between Figure 4 of the
Specification and Figure 2 of Paludan-Mueller shows that Paludan-Mueller
discloses not enhancing some channels. Figure 2 of Paludan-Mueller is
shown below:
2QC
Fig. 2
6
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of a hearing aid. Paludan-Mueller 133.
Paludan-Mueller explains:
The signal path of the hearing aid 200 comprises an input
transducer or microphone 214 transforming an acoustic input
sound signal into an electric input sound signal 226, a band split
filter 202 receiving the electric input sound signal and splitting
this electric input sound signal into a number of frequency bands
to obtain band split signals 218-1, 218-2,..., 218-n, a summing
unit and an output transducer.
Paludan-Mueller 140.
Figure 4 of the instant Specification is shown below:
Figure 4 “is a schematic illustration of an exemplary architecture for
selectively enhancing an audio signal in accordance with the present
invention.” Spec. 127. The architecture shown in Figure 4 includes a
process block 66 for selective channel enhancement. Id. 137. “Specifically,
7
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
after the input acoustic signal, x(t), is divided into a plurality of spectral
channels at process block 64, channel selection for enhancement is applied
such that only some of the channels are selectively enhanced.” Id. Although
there are some similarities between Paludan-Mueller Figure 2 and
Specification Figure 4, notably absent from Figure 2 and the Examiner’s
findings regarding Figure 2 is what portion of Figure 2 performs the
equivalent function of process block 66 from Figure 4 for selective channel
enhancement. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner’s finding of
selective enhancement is not supported by the current record.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other
arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claim 15, which
recites limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above, and dependent claims 2-4 and 16—19.
With respect to claim 8, Appellants advance a similar argument to the
one discussed above. See App. Br. 21—23. Appellants further argue
Kluender does not cure the deficiency in Paludan-Mueller. Id. Because
claim 8 recites limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above with regard to claim 1 and the Examiner has not shown that
Kluender cures this deficiency of Paludan-Mueller, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 8, along with the rejections of
claims 5—7, 9-14, and 20, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims
1, 8 and 15.
8
Appeal 2016-002371
Application 12/955,343
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—20.
REVERSED
9