10206704 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2009)

Ex Parte Mantovani

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 25, 2009

10206704 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOSE RICARDO BADDINI MANTOVANI ____________ Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: September 25, 2009 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 14-17, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 2 Invention Appellant’s invention relates to an audio electronics device with a sound transducer 410 (Fig. 1) and an audio compensator 450. Abstract. Representative Claim 1. A method in an electronics device having an ear-mounted sound transducer, comprising: determining a change in an electrical parameter that changes with changes in an acoustic impedance of the sound transducer; determining audio signal compensation based upon empirical audio signal compensation data correlated with changes in the electrical parameter for a particular frequency response; dynamically compensating an audio signal sent to the sound transducer based upon the audio signal compensation. Prior Art Walker 5,068,903 Nov. 26, 1991 Richardson 5,771,297 Jun. 23, 1998 Attimont 6,564,072 B1 May 13, 2003 Loeb 6,829,131 B1 Dec. 7, 2004 Examiner’s Rejections/Claim Status Claims 1-4, 6-8, 14-16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attimont, Walker, and Loeb. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attimont, Loeb, Walker, and Richardson. Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 3 Claim 20 stands allowed. Claims 5, 9-13, 18, 21, and 22 have been canceled. Claim Groupings Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). FINDINGS OF FACT Loeb Loeb teaches a microspeaker unit 10 (Fig. 2) that dynamically compensates for various acoustical impedances. Col. 7, ll. 34-36. Digital signal processor (DSP) 16 generates a test frequency sweep at predetermined intervals. Each time the test frequency sweep is generated, the DSP, using the feedback network, monitors the diaphragm’s (14) vibration and movement in response to the test frequency. The DSP measures the acoustic impedance presented to the diaphragm by the surrounding air pressure or by any other acoustic medium surrounding the diaphragm. The DSP takes into account the measured acoustic impedance and compensates for this acoustic impedance (or load), thus ensuring a flat frequency response over a wide range of loads. Col. 7, ll. 46-67. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Claim Interpretation During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 4 skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Obviousness The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). ANALYSIS We refer to, and rely on, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set out in the Final Rejection and the Answer. Our discussion is limited to Appellant’s response to the rejections in the Brief. Claim 1 Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Loeb teaches determining audio signal compensation based upon empirical audio compensation data correlated with changes in the electrical parameter for a particular frequency response, as recited in claim 1. Appellant acknowledges that Loeb discloses that the DSP compensates for the acoustic Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 5 impedance, taking into account the measured acoustic impedance in association with the test frequency sweeps. Appellant argues, however, that “[t]he empirical data in Loeb thus corresponds to the measured acoustic impedance, not audio signal compensation data.” Br. 5. Although Appellant argues that the empirical data in Loeb is not “audio signal compensation data,” Appellant neglects to tell us what “audio signal compensation data” may comprise. In the Brief’s Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, Appellant submits that the recitation in controversy is described at page 11, lines 1 through 17 of the Specification. That section of the Specification does not contain the language “empirical audio signal compensation data.” The description at page 11 appears to be foreshadowed, however, by a statement at page 9 of the Specification. “[T]he compensation estimator 440 [Fig. 4] determines the audio signal compensation based upon empirical audio signal compensation data correlated with changes in the detected electrical parameter that changes with the changing acoustic impedance of the speaker for a particular desired frequency response characteristic.” Spec. 9:8-12. Returning to the supporting material at page 11, the Specification says that “[t]he audio compensation is determined based upon previously generated experimental results correlating measured changes in impedance with frequency response characteristics for several acoustic coupling environments.” Spec. 11:4-7 (emphasis added). Appellant’s “empirical audio signal compensation data” thus appears to include precisely what Appellant acknowledges Loeb to teach in the empirical data. Acoustic impedance measurements are part of the empirical data in both Appellant’s and in Loeb’s methods. Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 6 Appellant should have been in the best position to demonstrate why the recitation in claim 1 that is thought to distinguish over the prior art is not taught by Loeb. However, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of any error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellant also appears to argue (Br. 5) that Loeb does not describe the first step of claim 1; i.e., determining a change in an electrical parameter that changes with changes in an acoustic impedance of the sound transducer. If that is Appellant’s position, we disagree. In any event, the Examiner relies on Attimont and Walker for teaching the first step of the claim, which Appellant’s argument does not show to be in error. Claim 14 Appellant argues that instant claim 14 contains language that was incorporated from a depending claim, language which resulted in a reversal by the Board in an earlier appeal. Appellant contends that claim 14 now recites that the audio compensator “is a digital filter having an adjustable frequency response and gain,” and that the rejection of claim 14 is thus “improper and must be withdrawn.” Br. 6. As the Examiner indicates, Appellant relies on the Board’s conclusion in a different rejection with a different set of facts. The earlier rejection was based on the evidence provided by Walker alone. Instant claim 14 is rejected over the combination of Attimont, Walker, and Loeb. The Examiner finds that Loeb teaches that the audio compensator is a digital filter (16; Fig. 2), the filter having an adjustable frequency response and gain. Ans. 5; Loeb col. 7, ll. 47-65. Appeal 2009-004763 Application 10/206,704 7 Appellant’s remarks about a different rejection thus do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the prior art teaches the “audio compensator” of claim 14. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 14-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attimont, Walker, and Loeb is affirmed. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Attimont, Loeb, Walker, and Richardson is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED msc MOTOROLA INC 600 NORTH US HIGHWAY 45 W4 - 39Q LIBERTYVILLE, IL 60048-5343