Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

14185632 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
14/185,632 02/20/2014 Flemming SCHMIDT GNRP2192 DK US 9290
86107 7590 01/31/2018
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (GN Resound)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
EASON, MATTHEW A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FLEMMING SCHMIDT, EBBE SKAMMELSEN,
and ANDREAS SCHOUSBOE
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, 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 and 3—23. Claim 2 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of the claims rejected under
§§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
Invention
According to Appellants, the disclosed and claimed invention relates
to “providing configuration information of a hearing aid,” and “a system for
fitting a hearing aid utilizing the configuration information” (Spec, f 2).
Representative Claim
1. A hearing aid comprising:
a first housing accommodating first circuitry;
a second housing accommodating second circuitry; and
a connector configured for interconnection of the first circuitry
with the second circuitry;
wherein the connector comprises a line for transmission of a
first signal between the first circuitry and the second circuitry;
wherein the second circuitry includes a component configured
to provide a second signal with configuration information for
transmission to the first circuitry utilizing the line; and
wherein the first signal comprises an audio signal representing
sound.
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 4, 5, 10-13, 16, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gottschalk (US 2009/0052706;
published Feb. 26, 2009).
B. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gottschalk and Muller (US
2010/0272272; published Oct. 28, 2010).
C. Claims 6—9, 13—15, 17—19, and 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gottschalk.
ISSUES
2
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Gottschalk discloses a “connector” that “comprises a line for
transmission of a first signal between the first circuitry and the second
circuitry” wherein the second circuitry includes “a component configured to
provide a second signal with configuration information for transmission to
the first circuitry utilizing the line'1'’ and “the first signal comprises an audio
signal” (claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the issue turns on whether
Gottschalk discloses using the same line for transmission of a first signal
comprising an audio and a second signal comprising configuration
information.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants disclose a method for providing configuration information
of a hearing aid, wherein Figure 3 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
12
Figure 3 shows a block diagram of a hearing aid circuitry 12, 24, wherein a
receiver driver 42 transmits a high frequency signal on line 44 (| 108), and
microcontroller 40 transmits a code on line 44 upon seizure of the high
frequency signal (1109). Thus, the code is transmitted and decoded using
signal lines for transmission of an audio signal to the receiver, always
present in a hearing aid, and without adding circuitry to the housing (| 111).
Gottschalk
2. Gottschalk discloses a hearing aid device, wherein Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
Figure 1 shows a hearing aid device 1 having a device component 2 to be
worn behind the ear, and earpiece 3 to be worn in the ear (| 25). In signal
processing unit 7, electrical input signal emitted by microphone 4 is
processed and amplified and conducted via cables 8, 13 and contacts 9 to
receiver 10 (id.).
3. Figure 2 is reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
Figure 2 shows a terminal unit 20 of a hearing aid device comprising socket
connectors 21, 22 into which connector pins A, B of receiver 10 may be
inserted (| 28). After inserting the receiver 10 into terminal unit 20,
connector pins A, B make contact with contacts KA, KB, and evaluation
logic system 23 converts the identified switch positions into logic levels that
are transmitted via interface 24 to a processing unit of the hearing aid device
(id.).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “Gottschalk does not disclose that the same line
for transmitting such logic levels (between the evaluation logic system 23
and processing unit 7) also transmits an audio signal representing sound,” as
required by the claimed invention (App. Br. 6). According to Appellants, as
shown in Figure 2, “the interface 24 of Gottschalk is shown to have four
different lines” (id.) Thus, Appellants contend
to the extent that the logic signal communicated between the
circuit 23 and the processing unit 7 is analogized as the claimed
‘second signal’ with configuration information, it is clear that in
Gottschalk, the line(s) transmitting such logic signal are
different and distinct from the line(s) transmitting audio signal
Id.
That is, according to Appellants,
Two of the lines in the four wire interface 24 of Gottschalk
interconnect the receiver with the circuit in the BTE housing 2
for transmitting audio signal, while the other two lines
interconnect the processor 7 with the evaluation logic system 23
in the BTE housing for transmitting logic signals.
Reply Br. 7.
6
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of
evidence supports Appellants’ position. “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., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Here, even though we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2) that the
claims are given “the broadest reasonable interpretation” (See In re Morris,
111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), we do not agree that
The claim is not so limiting as to require a number of wires or
conductors within a cable or bundle of cables and for only one
of those number of wires or conductors within the cable or
bundle of cables to transmit both configuration information as
well as an audio signal representing sound.
Ans. 2—3.
In particular, claim 1 requires that the “connector” comprises “a line”
for transmission an audio signal between the first and second circuitry and
that the second circuitry includes a second signal with configuration
information for transmission to the first circuitry “utilizing the line” (claim
1, emphasis added). That is, we disagree with the Examiner that the claims
do not require “only one of those number or wires or conductors... to
transmit both configuration information as well as an audio signal
representing sound” (Ans. 2—3).
We agree with Appellants that the claims require that the code is
transmitted using the same line for transmission of an audio signal to the
receiver (claim 1), which according to Appellants, such line is used “without
adding circuitry to the housing” (FF 1). We do not find any clear teaching in
7
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
the referenced portions of Gottschalk of the contested limitation (FF 2—3).
Instead, we agree with Appellants that “the interface 24 of Gottschalk is
shown to have four different lines” (App. Br. 6).
Further, even if it is possible that the same line is used to transmit
both the code and the audio signal, such possibilities are not sufficient to
establish an anticipation basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Instead, as Appellants contend, “two of the lines in the four wire interface 24
of Gottschalk interconnect the receiver with the circuit in the BTE housing 2
for transmitting audio signal,” while “the other two lines interconnect the
processor 7 with the evaluation logic system 23 in the BTE housing for
transmitting logic signals” (Reply Br. 2).
Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s
finding that the cited portions of Gottschalk disclose the contested
limitations of using the same “line” for transmitting audio signals and logic
signals, either expressly or inherently, as required by the claims.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, of independent claim
20, which recites commensurate limitations, and of claims 4, 5, 10-13, 16,
22, and 23 depending respectively therefrom.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claim 3 over the combination of Gottschalk and Muller, and of
claims 6—9, 13—15, 17—19, and 21 over Gottschalk, because the Examiner
relies on Gottschalk in the same manner discussed above, does not perform
further fact-finding to support an obviousness conclusion, and does not rely
on any other reference in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of the
8
Appeal 2017-002423
Application 14/185,632
underlying anticipation rejection. See CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal,
No. 2016-2198, 2017 WL 6002755, at *12 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017) (holding
findings on anticipation insufficient as a matter of law to decide the
obviousness inquiry) (citing Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) overruled on other grounds, Aqua Prods., Inc.
v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1296 n.l (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc)).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 10-13,
16, 22, and 23 under § 102(b) and claims 3, 6—9, 13—15, 17—19, and 21
under § 103.
REVERSED
9