Ex Parte Stewart

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2002

08598098 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2002)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte BRETT B. STEWART

Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098

HEARD: APRIL 16, 2002

Before KRASS, BARRY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-14, all of the claims in the application.
The invention is directed to directional microphones. In
particular, a plurality of microphones, each producing electrical
signals representative of sound signals incident thereon are
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-2–
spaced apart from each other. A signal processor receives the
electrical signals and produces a specific direction and width
sound signal by processing the electrical signals according to a
specific sound direction.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A sound processing apparatus comprising:
a plurality of microphones spaced apart from each other,
each microphone producing electrical signals representative of
sound signals incident thereon; and
a signal processing unit receiving the electrical signals
and producing a specific direction and width sound signal by
processing the electrical signals according to a specific sound
direction.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Elko et al. (Elko) 4,802,227 Jan. 31, 1989
Yanagawa et al. (Yanagawa) 5,233,664 Aug. 03, 1993
Gale 5,291,556 Mar. 01, 1994
Chang et al. (Chang) 5,581,036 Dec. 03, 1996
(filed May 23, 1994)
Claims 1, 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Elko.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Elko with regard to
claim 8, adding Gale with regard to claim 9, and further adding
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-3–
Chang with regard to claims 5 and 6. With regard to claims 1-4
and 10-13, the examiner offers Chang and with regard to claim 14,
the examiner cites Elko and either one of Yanagawa or Gale.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b), since claims 7 and 13 are grouped together with
claim 1 [top of page 4 of the principal brief], we will focus on
claim 1.
Claim 1 calls for a sound processing apparatus comprising a
plurality of microphones spaced apart from each other. This is
taught by Elko at column 2, lines 53-54, wherein “an array of
electroacoustic transducers having a prescribed directional
response pattern...” is described. The claim says that “each
microphone produc[es] electrical signals representative of sound
signals incident thereon.” That is what microphones do, but this
is also described in Elko, at column 2, lines 55-57, wherein the
array of transducers “...receives sounds from the preferred
location as well as a plurality of unwanted sounds from other
locations and produces signals responsive thereto” [emphasis
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-4–
added].
Claim 1 next calls for a signal processing unit for
receiving the electrical signals. This is described by Elko at
column 2, lines 61-66, wherein the processing unit receives the
electrical signals at analysis time intervals and, during each
analysis time interval, “a set of weighting signals are formed to
adjust the directional response pattern of the array and the
received sound signals are combined with the weighting signals to
produce an output signal substantially representative of the
sound signal from the preferred location sound source in each
analysis time interval.” Thus, the signal processing unit of
Elko processes the electrical signals according to a specific
sound direction and produces a specific direction and width sound
signal, as claimed.
Appellant argues that Elko teaches that a directional
response pattern is “adaptively adjusted” during successive time
intervals to maintain the operator location in the main beam of
the pattern while developing null points in the directional
response pattern at each noise source although the noise source
may move and that, unlike the presently claimed invention, “Elko
is noise source dependent” [principal brief-page 4]. However,
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-5–
instant claim 1 mentions nothing about noise source dependency or
independency.
Accordingly, the claim does not preclude Elko’s noise source
being “dependent.”
At page 5 of the principal brief, appellant argues:
Elko’s adaptive adjustment does not permit selecting
the beam width to be narrower than the distance between
noise sources. The ability to select beam width in the
present invention need not depend on the existence of
noise sources, as in Elko. That is to say, Elko’s
width is not specifically selected, but rather it is
adaptively adjusted in response to the relative
locations of the desired source and other noise
source(s). In contrast to Elko, the present invention
does not need noise sources to select a beam width.
Indeed, in the present invention, when a beam is
directed at a desired sound source, the appearance or
disappearance of extraneous noise sources need not
result in changing the beam width, as in Elko.
However, we find this argument to be immaterial to the
subject matter at hand since appellant has pointed to no specific
claim language on which the argument is based and, in fact, we
find no language in claim 1 regarding selection of beam width
being independent of noise sources or that the appearance or
disappearance of extraneous noise sources need not result in
changing the beam width. Arguments directed to limitations not
appearing in the claims are not persuasive. In re Self, 671 F.2d
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-6–
1344, 1348 and 1351, 213 USPQ 1, 5 and 7 (CCPA 1982).
We do note that in the portion of appellant’s argument
quoted supra, appellant admits that Elko teaches an “adaptive
adjustment” of a directional response pattern. Thus, it would
appear, contrary to appellant’s argument, that Elko at least
teaches a general adjustment of the beam width.
To whatever extent appellant is relying on the claim
language, “producing a specific direction and width sound
signal...,” appellant has not adequately explained why Elko does
not teach such a limitation in view of Elko’s disclosure at
column 2, lines 51-67.
Moreover, referring to Figure 6 of Elko, it can be seen that
the major lobe 610 is pointing toward a predefined location SL
while the noise sources NS1, NS2, NS3 and NS4 are pointing
towards nulls between the nodes so that the noise sources are not
picked up. Instant claim 1 does not preclude the noise sources
pointing to nulls. The claim requires that the signal processing
unit produce a “specific direction and width sound signal by
processing the electrical signals according to a specific sound
direction.” The “specific sound direction” in Elko is the
direction of the main node 610 toward sound source SL and a
specific direction and width sound signal is produced by the
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-7–
processor in accordance with this specific sound direction. So
while it may be true that Elko produces a specific sound
direction and width sound signal according to a specific sound
direction and another noise source, Elko does show that the
production of a specific sound direction and width sound is
produced according to at least a specific sound direction and the
claim does not preclude Elko’s further use of a noise source.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Since the rejections of claims 8 and 14, which are grouped
together with claim 1 by appellant, are not separately argued,
and these rejections rely in part on Elko, we will also sustain
the rejection of claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-13 under
35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner relies on Chang. It is the
examiner’s position that, since Chang discloses the receipt of
reflected ultrasonic sound signals in a multimicrophone array,
and uses variable delays implemented by various sampling times to
form a directed beam at a desired point, in order to scan the
reflection field to reconstruct an image, the beam must be
focussed at different points and this must be done by varying the
relative delays along the array to slew the beam direction in
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-8–
azimuth. See pages 4-5 of the answer. The examiner specifically
points to column 2, lines 40 et seq. for the teaching of, in the
case of dynamic focusing, changing the delay time of each
delayer. The examiner also contends that, in Chang, the variable
sampling time implements the variable delay and that it is
inherent that any beam has a specific beam width.
The examiner’s rationale appears reasonable in view of the
rather broad language of claim 1 and, its method counterpart,
claim 10.
Appellant’s principal argument in this regard is that there
is no teaching or suggestion, in Chang, of the “specifically
selected beam width” [principal brief-page 5]. The only claim in
this group which recites a “specific beam width” is claim 13.
Thus, the argument is not even germane to claims 1-4 and 10-12.
With regard to claim 13, this claim does not recite that the
“specific beam width” is “selected,” as now argued by appellant.
Accordingly, appellant is, again, arguing limitations which do
not appear in the claims and, therefore, the argument is not
persuasive.
Moreover, appellant admits, at page 2 of the reply brief
[The width of Chang’s beam is determined by the configuration of
the transducer array...”], that Chang discloses a selective beam
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-9–
width, i.e., the selection of the transducer array configuration
will determine the beam width. Accordingly, we find no
convincing argument by appellant to overcome the examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness.
Appellant’s other arguments, relative to Chang, regarding
dynamically focussing a beam at a plurality of independent points
on an object rather than collecting all of the data within a
prescribed beam [principal brief-page 5; reply brief-page 2] are,
again, directed to limitations not appearing in the claims. If
these argued features do, somehow, refer to certain claim
limitations, appellant has not pointed out the specific claim
language to which he refers.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and
10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over
Elko and Gale, the examiner clearly explains the rejection at
pages 5-6 of the answer.
Appellant argues that Elko’s taps, in Figure 1, do not have
“adjustable relative time delays” as recited in claim 9, but,
instead, they have “fixed” relative time delays. Moreover,
appellant argues, there is no teaching of “computer controlled
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-10–
sound processing.” It is appellant’s position that the plurality
of microphones positioned around the display of a computer in
combination with a sound processor controlled by a computer and
the adjustable relative time delay are separately patentable
features.
Gale clearly suggests the arrangement of microphones around
a display and appellant does not appear to pursue this argument.
Elko clearly teaches a computer-controlled sound processor.
Rather, the issue hinges on whether Elko teaches or suggests the
claimed “adjustable relative time delays.” The examiner’s
response to appellant’s argument that Elko’s taps are “fixed” is
to state that “[s]ince Elko has to aim the beam, the delays for
different transducers have to be relatively adjustable...”
[answer-page 8].
While the disclosure of Elko does appear to disclose aiming
a beam (viz., “to direct the mainlobe of the prescribed
directional response pattern toward the preferred location”-
column 3, lines 9-11), this direction to a preferred location
appears to be dependent on weighting signals of preceding
analysis time intervals (column 3, lines 4-7). Since the
examiner has not established that these “weighting signals” of
Elko are related to “adjustable relative time delays,” as
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-11–
claimed, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and
6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because claim 5 calls for “variable
sampling intervals” and we are unconvinced that the applied
references suggest such variable sampling intervals.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b). We have also sustained the rejection of claims
1-4, 8 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103. We have not sustained the
rejection of claims 5, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-12–
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
-13–
EK/RWK
FOLEY AND LARDNER
3000 K STREET NW
SUITE 500
P.O. BOX 25696
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-8696