Ex Parte SOLI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2002

07921508 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 45
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SIGFRID D. SOLI and RALPH P. FRAVEL
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
____________
HEARD: September 17, 2002
____________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 through 9, and 11 through 18. Claim
10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but is otherwise indicated as being allowable.
Appellants' invention relates to an auditory prosthesis with
an adaptive filter and user controlled activation means for
activating the adaptive filter. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. An auditory prosthesis adapted to receive environmental
sound which contains a selected auditory component and to supply
an auditory stimulus which is perceptible to a user, comprising:
a transducer adapted to receive said environmental sound and
convert said environmental sound into an electrical input signal
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
2
containing a selected electrical component corresponding to said
selected auditory component in said environmental sound;
an adaptive filter receiving said electrical input signal
and providing a filtered signal, said adaptive filter having
adaptable filtering characteristics based upon a reference and
being operable in response to activation to adapt said filtering
characteristics using said electrical input signal as said
reference to determine said filtering characteristics required to
filter said selected electrical component from said electrical
input signal, said adaptive filter continuing to provide said
filtered signal while adapting said filtering characteristics in
response to said activation;
a receiver receiving said filtered signal and converting
said filtered signal to said auditory stimulus; and
user-controlled activation means for activating said
adaptive filter at a time controlled by said user, whereby said
user can initiate adaptation of said filter without changing
operating characteristics of said filter other than as a result
of said adaptation.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Graupe et al. (Graupe) 4,783,818 Nov. 08, 1988
Harris et al. (Harris) 4,791,390 Dec. 13, 1988
Goodings et al. (Goodings) 5,259,033 Nov. 02, 1993
Widrow and Stearns, Adaptive Signal Processing, 1985, pp. 103-106
and 350 (Widrow)
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Graupe in view of
Goodings.
Claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Graupe in view of
Goodings and Harris.
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
3
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Graupe in view of Goodings, Harris, and Widrow.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 36,
mailed March 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
33, filed September 25, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 37,
filed April 30, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4, 6 through
9, and 11 through 18.
Each of independent claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 18 includes a
user-controlled activation means for activating adaptation of the
filter at a time controlled by the user without changing the
operating characteristics of the filter except as a result of the
adaptation. The examiner (Answer, page 3) refers to Graupe's
manual gain change and on-off switch as the claimed user
controlled activation means. In Graupe, the switch control means
33 responds to a change in the gain of amplifier component 16 or
to a turn-on condition of the amplifier component and moves
switches S1 and S2 into their identification configuration state.
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
4
When the user turns on the device, and the switch control means
responds to turn-on, the user clearly changes the operating
characteristics of the filter. Further, when the switch control
means responds to a user's gain change, again the user changes
the filter's operating characteristics. Therefore, as asserted
by appellants (Brief, page 8), the user's initiation of
adaptation of the filter in Graupe changes the operating
characteristics of the filter other than simply the adaptation.
Furthermore, during identification configuration the
switches prevent an amplified output signal from reaching the
receiver; only an unamplified signal produced by the noise
generator reaches the speaker. Accordingly, during adaptation,
the filter does not continue to provide the filtered signal, as
required by all of the claims. Recognizing this deficiency, the
examiner turns to Goodings. The examiner states (Answer, page 3)
that "Goodings teaches on-line training system in which training
is on-line and unobtrusive by virtue of maintaining a significant
signal to noise ratio." The examiner further asserts (Answer,
pages 3-4) that both Goodings and Graupe recognize "that there
are many times when conditions are stable and adaption can be
stopped." The examiner concludes (Answer, page 4) that it would
have been obvious "to utilize Goodings teachings of on-line
adaption to the system of Graupe et al., but only at times when
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
5
needed (ie, unstable conditions or feedback detected either by
user or special hardware) as suggested by both Graupe and
Goodings."
Goodings, however, discloses (column 7, lines 18-20)
continuous adaptation. Thus, Goodings fails to provide the
claimed user control. Goodings does teach (column 11, lines 28-
53) a user controlled volume control and limiter level. Neither
of the user controls, though, controls when the adaptive filter
is activated, as the adaptation is continuous. Accordingly, the
combination of Graupe and Goodings fails to disclose each and
every limitation of the claims. Consequently, we cannot sustain
the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 12, 14, 15,
and 18, nor of their dependents, claims 4 and 6.
Regarding the rejection of claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 17
over Graupe, Goodings, and Harris, and of claim 8 over Graupe,
Goodings, Harris, and Widrow, each of independent claims 7, 13,
16, and 17 includes a user-controlled activation means for
controlling the time of activating filter adaptation without
changing the filter's operating characteristics except as a
result of the adaptation, previously found lacking from Graupe
and Goodings. Neither Harris nor Widrow (nor the combination
thereof) overcomes the deficiencies of the primary combination of
Graupe and Goodings. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
6
obviousness rejections of independent claims 7, 13, 16, and 17,
nor of their dependents, claims 8, 9, and 11.
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
7
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 6
through 9, and 11 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
AG/RWK
Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
8
David J. Cushing, Esq.
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20047-3202