Ex Parte Murthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13646921 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/646,921 10/08/2012
23494 7590 12/25/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nitish K. Murthy
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.
TI-71473 6280
EXAMINER
GANMA VO, KU ASS I A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITISH K. MURTHY and EDWIN RANDOLPH COLE
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 7-14, and 17-20. Appellants have canceled claims 5, 6, 15, and
16. See App. Br. 13, 15. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
hybrid noise cancellation. Spec. ,r 2. "[ A ]n active noise cancellation system
can attempt to generate signals for cancelling at least some of the noise
[(from the surrounding environment)]." Spec. ,r 3. In a disclosed
embodiment, two microphones are used for noise cancellation techniques.
Spec. ,r 4, Fig. 1. More particularly, the output from one of the microphones
is digitized and coupled to a digital feedback controller and the output from
the other microphone is coupled to a feedforward controller. Spec. ,r,r 16-
18, Fig. 3. According to the Specification, the disclosed hybrid analog-
digital active noise cancellation system provides good noise cancellation at
lower frequencies ( due to the analog feedforward path) and digital
tuneability with some residual noise cancellation ( due to the digital feedback
path). Spec. ,r 21.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method performed by a combination of electronic
circuitry components for active noise cancellation, the method
compnsmg:
from a first microphone, receiving first analog microphone
signals that represent first sound waves;
from a second microphone, receiving second analog
microphone signals that represent second sound waves that are
physically buffered from the first sound waves by a mechanical
structure between the first and second microphones;
in response to the first analog microphone signals,
peiforming analog feed-forward processing to estimate noise in
the first sound waves, and generating first analog cancellation
2
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
signals for cancelling at least some of the estimated noise in the
first sound waves;
converting the second analog microphone signals into
digital data that represent the second analog microphone signals;
in response to the digital data that represent the second
analog microphone signals, performing digital feedback
processing to estimate noise in the second sound waves, and
generating digital information for cancelling at least some
of the estimated noise in the second sound waves;
converting the digital information into second analog
cancellation signals that represent the digital information; and
combining the first and second analog cancellation signals
into third analog cancellation signals for cancelling at least some
of the estimated noise in the first and second sound waves.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Alves et al. (US
2012/0170766 Al; July 5, 2012) ("Alves") and Itabashi et al. (US
2008/0310645 Al; Dec. 18, 2008) ("Itabashi"). Final Act. 2-13.
2. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Alves, Itabashi, and Pan et al. (US
5,852,667; Dec. 22, 1998) ("Pan"). Final Act. 13-14.
3
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
ANALYSIS 2
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings
and suggestions of Alves and Itabashi. Final Act. 2--4. We begin our
analysis with a review of these references.
Alves is generally directed to an active noise cancellation system for
Bluetooth® headphones. Alves ,r,r 2-5, Title. Alves describes that there are
two known arrangements used in commercial ambient noise reduction
headphones: (i) a feedback arrangement that uses a microphone inside the
ear cup of the headphone; and (ii) a feedforward arrangement that uses a
microphone outside the ear cup. Alves ,r 11. Active noise controllers for
either arrangement may be analog or digital. Alves ,r 12. Additionally,
Alves discloses a variant of active noise cancellation controller "is the
hybrid feedforward-feedback controller." Alves ,r 24. According to Alves,
the hybrid feedforward-feedback controller can achieve greater active noise
cancellation than either controller alone. Alves ,r 24.
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 23, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed March 12, 2018
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed January 10, 2018 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action, mailed January 26, 2017 ("Final Act."), from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
Figure 7 of Alves is illustrative and is reproduced below:
Ne(t) /
---~··: -.:.. •' ...... --:::::::::::::::·::::::::{[;Y
,·,)
I 1;·
i r
\ \ + U(t) l i ( ! I \ l
~(\, ~~ \)
~ ~L~,,~), e(:Ai
I .
I
f-01.
Figure 7
Figure 7 of Alves illustrates a schematic of headphones implementing a
hybrid feedforward-feedback controller. Alves ,r 25. As shown, the
disclosed embodiment comprises external and internal microphones (701
and 702, respectively). Alves ,r 25. As is also shown, external microphone
(701) provides an input to feedforward filter (c_ff(t)) and internal
microphone (702) provides input to feedback filter c_fb(t)). See Alves,
Fig. 7. The Examiner relies on Figure 7 of Alves generally to teach the
analog feedforward limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3.
Itabashi is also generally directed to a noise cancellation system.
Itabashi ,r,r 3, 8. Itabashi teaches it is known that feedback-type noise
cancellation systems can provide a relatively substantial amount of noise
reduction, albeit over a comparatively small frequency bandwidth. Itabashi
,r 8. Itabashi also teaches it is known that a feedforward arrangement works
over a wide frequency band and is high in stability. Itabashi ,r 8. However,
5
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
Itabashi acknowledges that in a feedforward noise cancellation system "there
is a possibility that noise may increase." Itabashi ,r 8. Itabashi describes and
provides examples of noise cancellation systems of the feedback type (see,
e.g., Itabashi ,r,r 31--44, Figs. IA and IB) and noise cancellation systems of
the feedforward type (see, e.g., Itabashi ,r,r 45-55, Figs. 2A and 2B).
According to Itabashi, the disclosed system includes the benefits of both the
feedback and feedforward systems. Itabashi ,r 56; see also Itabashi ,r 71
( describing "a noise canceling system of the feedback type and a noise
canceling system of the feedforward type are superposed on each other to
form a single noise canceling system"). In a disclosed embodiment, Itabashi
describes the noise cancellation system as comprising a feedforward filter
circuit and a feedback filter circuit "each configured as a digital filter."
Itabashi ,r 58, Figs. 6A, 6B, and 6C, see also ,r,r 74, 77, Figs. 9A and 9B.
The Examiner relies on Figure 9B of Itabashi generally to teach the digital
feedback limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art
at the time of the invention to use the digital feedback processor
taught by Itabashi as feedback controller in the system taught by
Alves because both disclosures teach active noise control and
Alves disclose that a feedback filter can be digital or analog. The
motivation to do so would have been to improve the stability of
the active noise control.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants assert the Examiner has merely provided a conclusory
statement-without citing documentary evidence of record-in support of
the proposed combination. App. Br. 4--5. Appellants contend that neither
Alves nor Itabashi combined digital feedback and analogfeedforward in
6
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
their disclosed feedforward-feedback arrangements and that, absent relying
on impermissible hindsight, the Examiner has not set forth sufficient
evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Alves and Itabashi as suggested by the Examiner.
App. Br. 5-7. Appellants advance a similar argument regarding the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11. App. Br. 7-11.
In response, the Examiner reiterates that Alves discloses that the
feedback and feedforward arrangements can be either analog or digital and
that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use the digital
feedback of Itabashi with the analog feedforward arrangement of Alves.
Ans. 2-3 (citing Alves ,r 12).
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the relevant inquiry in an
obviousness analysis is whether the Examiner has set forth "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)).
With respect to the motivation to modify the teachings of Alves to
incorporate the digital feedback of Itabashi, we find the Examiner has not
provided the requisite "articulated reasoning" to support a conclusion of
obviousness. The Examiner has not identified from the references why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would combine the analog feedforward system of
Alves with the digital feedback of Itabashi. Rather, the Examiner provides a
general, and unsupported, statement of improved stability.
Although we note that design choice may be an acceptable rationale
for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known
elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known
7
Appeal2018-004272
Application 13/646,921
configuration, the Examiner has not set forth a "convincing line of
reasoning" as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the
claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973
(BP AI 1985).
We note that Alves does appear to contemplate the use of digital
feedback arrangements, see, e.g., Alves ,r,r 27-28, Fig. 9, but the Examiner
does not rely on this example. Although the Board is authorized to reject
claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the
Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the evidence of
record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 11. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 2--4, 7-10, 12-14, and 17-20, which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-14, and
17-20.
REVERSED
8