Ex Parte Reithinger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 2011

11126095 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2011)

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.
11/126,095 05/10/2005 Jurgen Reithinger 2004P03725US 3617
7590 10/28/2011
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
ENSEY, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JURGEN REITHINGER
____________

Appeal 2009-011782
Application 11/126,095
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-011782
Application 11/126,095

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a hearing aid having an
electrophoretic display (See Spec. ¶¶ [0002], [0004], [0009], and [0010]).
Independent claim 7, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
7. A hearing aid for an ear of a wearer, comprising:

a housing for accommodating the hearing aid, the housing
having an exterior surface which extends outwards from the ear of
the wearer when worn forming an outside surface;

a battery compartment on the outside surface of the housing,

a microphone input on the outside surface of the housing, and

a display device on the outside surface of the housing for
displaying status information related to operating the hearing aid,
wherein the display device is an electrophoretic display.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Martin (US 5,210,803), Hanright (US 5,875,254), and
Albert (US 6,118,426).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Martin teaches all of Appellant’s claimed
limitations but “does not expressly disclose the battery compartment or
microphone input on the outside surface of the housing” (Ans. 3). The
Examiner finds “the placement of a battery compartment or microphone
input on the outside surface of the hearing aid housing is well known in the
Appeal 2009-011782
Application 11/126,095

3
art” and cites Hanright for showing this feature (Ans. 3). The Examiner then
finds Albert teaches an electrophoretic display that can be any size or shape,
can be placed on various objects, and can be used in place of Martin’s
display to achieve flexibility and low power consumption (Ans. 4).
Appellant does not contest the features of Martin or Albert. Rather,
Appellant contends Hanright does not teach a battery compartment on the
outside surface of a hearing aid housing as claimed (App. Br. 3; Reply Br.
2). Appellant asserts there is no indication in Hanright as to the position of
the battery compartment (App. Br. 4). Appellant then asserts the Examiner
is incorrect in finding the “+” in Fig. 2B of Hanright indicates a battery
(Reply Br. 2-3). However, Appellant has merely made conclusory
statements without providing evidentiary support for these assertions.
Further, Appellant’s own Specification supports the Examiner’s finding the
claimed battery compartment is known, stating “[T]he largest proportion of
this outside surface is usually occupied by the battery compartment B”
(emphasis added) (Spec. ¶ [0020]).
Further, it would have been an obvious design choice to replace the
LCD of Martin with the electrophoretic display of Albert, as electrophoretic
displays were known at the time of Appellant’s invention (Spec. ¶ [0005]).
Thus, claims 7-13 are obvious over the collective teachings of Martin,
Hanright, and Albert.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-13 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-011782
Application 11/126,095

4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

kis