Ex Parte Keane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

13325669 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
13/325,669 12/14/2011 Anthony R. A. Keane RF-635 7116
68085 7590 12/19/2016
HARRIS CORPORATION
C/O FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
997 Lenox Drive
Building 3
Lawrenceville, NJ 08543-5231
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
ipdocket @ foxrothschild. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY R. A. KEANE and BRYCE TENNANT
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1, 4—15, and 18—29. We reverse.
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 11, 15, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett (US 5,473,684; issued Dec. 5, 1995), Stoltz
(US 2012/0316872 Al; published Dec. 13, 2012), and Litvak
(US 2011/0064240 Al; published Mar. 17, 2011). Ans. 2-5.1
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Sakuraba
(US 2009/0154692 Al; published June 18, 2009). Ans. 5.
Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Song (US 2011/0188687 Al;
published Aug. 4, 2011). Ans. 6.
Claims 6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, Song, and Gable
(US 2012/0230527 Al; published Sept. 13, 2012). Ans. 6.
Claims 7 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Takano
(US 2011/0176690 Al; published July 21, 2011). Ans. 7.
Claims 8 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Niederdrank
(US 7,474,755 B2; patented Jan. 6, 2009). Ans. 7-8.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection, mailed
February 5, 2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Advisory Action, mailed April 1,
2015 (“Adv. Act.”); (3) the Appeal Brief, filed June 29, 2015 (“App. Br.”);
(4) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 19, 2015 (“Ans.”); and (5) the
Reply Brief, filed January 4, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
Claims 9 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Jin (US 2007/0262819 Al;
published Nov. 15,2007). Ans. 8—9.
Claims 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Yoshizawa
(US 2010/0215191 Al; published Aug. 26, 2010). Ans. 9.
Claims 12—14 and 26—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bartlett, Stoltz, Litvak, and Petroff
(US 2005/0190927 Al; published Sept. 1, 2005). Ans. 9-10.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention matches gain levels of transducers (e.g.,
microphones). Spec, 1—2. The performance of multi-microphone noise
cancellation depends on the degree of match between two microphone
systems. Id. 14. For instance, if the microphone’s gain levels are not
matched, then one signal will be amplified by a larger amount than the other.
Id. When the noise cancellation process subtracts these two signals, the
resulting signal will contain unwanted far-field noise. Id. In other words,
noise cancellation will be less effective. Id. Appellants’ invention balances
the gain—i.e., decreases the difference between the gains of two or more
microphones. Id. 112. The invention can disable balancing of voice or
“noisy” signals. Id. 176. Voice signals contain wanted speech components.
3
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
Id. 129. “Noisy” signals have energy levels equal to or less than a noise
floor. Id. 134.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis, is illustrative:
1. A method for matching characteristics of two or more
transducer systems, comprising:
receiving, at an electronic circuit, a first input signal from
a first transducer system and a second input signal from a second
transducer system;
determining, by said electronic circuit, if the first and
second input signals comprise a voice signal containing speech
of a relatively high volume;
determining by said electronic circuit, if the first input
signal comprises a noisy signal containing speech or system
noise of a relatively low volume by comparing an energy level of
the first input signal directly to a pre-defimed noise floor level of
the system noise', and
disabling balancing operations of the electronic circuit
when at least one of the following is determined (1) the first and
second input signals comprise said voice signal and (2) the first
input signal comprises said noisy signal, where the balancing
operations comprise balancing said matching characteristics of
said transducer systems.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BARTLETT, STOLTZ, AND
LITVAK
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Bartlett teaches every limitation of claim 1
except determining if signals are noisy signals by comparing the first
signal’s energy levels to the recited pre-defmed noise-floor level. Ans. 3^4.
The Examiner, however, finds that Stoltz and Litvak teach this limitation in
concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. at 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Bartlett determines if the signal is “noisy,” but does not
4
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
do so using the recited noise-floor level. Id. at 3^4 (citing Bartlett col. 7,
11. 4—17). To address this feature, the Examiner finds that Stoltz discloses a
noise-floor level, but notes that Stoltz’s level is not pre-defmed. Ans. 4
(citing Stoltz | 69). According to the Examiner, Litvak pre-defmes a level,
and it would have been obvious to use Litvak’s pre-definition to improve
efficiency. Ans. 4 (citing Litvak 135).
Appellants argue that the proposed combination lacks the recited
determining a noisy signal by comparing the energy level (e.g., volume) to a
noise-floor level. App. Br. 11—19. According to Appellants, Bartlett cancels
low-volume speech from the input signal during balancing operations by
comparing the signal to an ambient-noise threshold. Id. at 12—13.
According to Appellants, Bartlett uses this threshold for enabling balancing
operations for low-volume signals, and this use is unlike claim 1, which
recites disabling balancing operations for low-volume signals. Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to modify
Bartlett with Stoltz’s noise-floor detector to arrive at the claimed invention.
Reply Br. 3—5. According to Appellants, Stoltz determines the lowest
amount of background noise where canceling the noise would improve the
user’s listening experience. Id. at 4. Appellants contend that this processing
is different from that of Bartlett’s equalizer, which filters the microphone’s
input signal. Id. at 3. In Appellants’ view, the Examiner’s proposed
combination would output a signal in very limited circumstances. Id. at 5.
Issue
Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that
Bartlett, Stoltz, and Litvak collectively would have taught or suggested
determining if a signal is a noisy signal by comparing the signal’s energy
5
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
levels to a pre-defmed noise-floor level of the system noise and disabling
balancing operations of the electronic circuit when the signal comprises the
noisy signal, as recited in claim 1 ?
Analysis
Claim 1 recites, in part, that one criteria for disabling balancing
operations is the detection of a “noisy signal.” The Specification discloses
that “[sjignals with energy levels equal to or less than a noise floor are
referred to herein as ‘noisy signals’.” Spec. 134. Signals containing low-
volume speech or low-level system noise are examples of “noisy signals.”
Id. Therefore, claim 1 reads on a method that disables balancing operations
when the first signal’s energy level is equal to or less than a noise floor.
Notably, this is the opposite of what Bartlett teaches. Accord
App. Br. 12. As part of a noise-canceling system, Bartlett uses an adaptive
algorithm to balance the microphones. Bartlett col. 6,11. 60-65. According
to Bartlett, it is desirable to adapt only when no speech is present. Id.
col. 7,11. 4—6. Consequently, Bartlett permits adaptation to take place only
when the microphone is below a predetermined threshold. Id. col. 7,
11. 9—13. This threshold can be set to 10 to 15 dB above the ambient-noise
level. Id. col. 7,11. 4—17, cited in Ans. 3. That is, unlike claim 1, Bartlett
enables balancing operations for low-volume signals (i.e., noisy signals).
Bartlett col. 7,11. 9-13.
To arrive at the claimed invention, the Examiner modifies Bartlett to
require another threshold—i.e., a noise floor—to disable balancing
operations. Ans. 4. For this purpose, the Examiner turns to Stoltz. See id.
But for the reasons discussed below, we find that the Examiner’s
combination is problematic.
6
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
In particular, Stoltz uses adaptive noise-canceling operations to
generate anti-noise only when required. Stoltz | 63. According to Stoltz,
anti-noise is not required when background noise is low. Id. In Stoltz’s
view, anti-noise without the presence of high-background noise creates an
unpleasant listening experience. Id. That is, unlike Bartlett, Stoltz disables
noise-canceling operations for low-volume signals, which Stoltz views as
benefiting the listening experience. See id.
To determine when noise cancellation would be beneficial, Stoltz uses
a “noise-floor detector.” Id. 1 69, cited in Ans. 4. This noise-floor detector
has a minimum and maximum threshold. Stoltz | 69. The maximum
represents a saturation point. Id. And the minimum threshold is the lowest
noise level where an anti-noise signal would be beneficial. Id.
The Examiner, however, has not explained how Stoltz’s noise-floor
detector would operate in Bartlett. Such an explanation is required here
because Bartlett and Stoltz handle low-volume signals quite differently.
Specifically, Bartlett enables noise-cancelation operations, whereas Stoltz
disables such operations. Compare Bartlett col. 7,11. 9-13 with Stoltz | 69.
Apart from noting that noise compensation could be “carried out for lower
sound levels,” the Examiner does not provide a rationale for disregarding
Bartlett’s teachings that balancing operations should be enabled for
low-volume signals. See Ans. 4. Furthermore, the Examiner explains that
the proposed modifications to Bartlett would make the system “more
efficient.” See id. But we see no reason why adding or modifying Bartlett’s
thresholds would improve efficiency.
7
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
Rather, Bartlett’s threshold is a mere 10 to 15 dB above the level of
ambient noise.2 Bartlett col. 7,11. 13—17. It is not apparent from this record
why one of ordinary skill in the art would add a floor to disable Bartlett’s
balancing at an even lower threshold. See Ans. 4, 12. That is, the proposed
combination of two thresholds used by the prior art for opposite purposes
lacks an articulated rationale. See id. Accordingly, we are persuaded that
the Examiner has not shown that it would have been obvious to modify
Bartlett with Stoltz’s noise-floor detector to arrive at the claimed invention.
See App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 3—5.
Because Litvak was relied upon for the limited purpose of teaching a
predefining a threshold (see Ans. 4, 12—13), Litvak does not cure the
rejection’s deficiency explained previously.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 or independent claim 15, which recites the
limitations-at-issue as a circuit’s function. Nor do we sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 11 and 25, which are based on the Examiner’s rationale
for the rejection of claims 1 and 15. See Ans. 5.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
For the same reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and
15, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
4—10, 12—14, 18—24, and 26—29. Ans. 5—10. The additional references—
Sakuraba, Song, Gable, Takano, Niederdrank, Jin, Yoshizawa, and Petroff—
2 We note for perspective that 10—15 dB corresponds to a volume level that
is just above the threshold of human hearing—e.g., the volume of a pin drop
or the rustling of distant leaves, http://www.noisehelp.com/noise-level-
chart.html.
8
Appeal 2016-002685
Application 13/325,669
were not relied upon to teach the limitation that is missing from Bartlett,
Stoltz, and Litvak (Ans. 5—10), and, thus, do not cure the deficiency
explained previously.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—15, and 18—29 is
reversed.
REVERSED
9