Ex Parte Stöbich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13424524 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
13/424,524 03/20/2012 Bernhard Stobich 1941/D30 8655
2101 7590 03/29/2017
Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
125 SUMMER STREET
BOSTON, MA 02110-1618
EXAMINER
FAIRCHILD, MALLIKA DIPAYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
usptomail @ sunsteinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNHARD STOBICH
Appeal 2015-001980
Application 13/424,524
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 and 6—8. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant identifies “Med-El Elektromedizinische GmbH” as the real
party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-001980
Application 13/424,524
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates to hearing implant systems and
specifically an arrangement for checking proper audio input signals to such
systems” so that “[pjarents or guardians of non-cooperative hearing implant
users (e.g. children)” can check whether or not “[an] external audio
processor” is working properly. (Spec. ^fl[ 2, 6.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. An external processor device for a hearing implant system,
the device comprising:
an audio signal processor configured to receive an electrical
input signal containing audio information received from
an external microphone and to develop a corresponding
implant stimulation signal output;
a stimulation signal transmitter coupled to the signal processor
and configured to receive the implant stimulation signal
and transmit the implant stimulation signal to an
implanted portion of the hearing implant system;
wherein the device includes an audio bypass mode wherein the
audio bypass mode provides the electrical input signal
received from the external microphone to the
stimulation signal transmitter for transmission instead of
the implant stimulation signal.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Crosby.3 (Non-Final Action 5.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crosby. (Non-Final Action 7.)
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix set forth on
page 7 of the Appeal Brief.
3 US 4,532,930 issued Aug. 6, 1985.
2
Appeal 2015-001980
Application 13/424,524
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites an “implant stimulation signal” and a
“transmitter” that is configured to “transmit” the implant stimulation signal
“to an implanted portion of [a] hearing implant system.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Crosby discloses “a transmitting
coil” that transmits the implant stimulation signal to an implanted portion of
a hearing implant system. (Non-Final Action 6.) The Examiner’s finding,
as we understand it, is that the transmitting coil 87 shown in Crosby’s
Figure 17 is considered the claimed transmitter. (See Crosby, Fig. 17.)
Independent claim 1 further recites an “electrical input signal” and a
“bypass mode” that “provides the electrical input signal” to the transmitter
“for transmission instead of the implant stimulation signal.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Crosby discloses such a bypass mode
by virtue of a two-position switch 120 associated with a STAMP signal.
(See Non-Final Action 6—7.) According to the Examiner, when switch 120
is in a first position, the produced STAMP signal can be considered the
recited “implant stimulation signal,” and, when switch 120 is in a second
position, the produced STAMP signal can be considered the recited “electric
input signal.” (See id., see also Answer 5—6.)
The Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner erroneously contends that
the STAMP signal in Crosby meets [the] claim language.” (Appeal Br. 5.)
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s position because, regardless of the
position of switch 120, Crosby’s so-called bypass mode does not provide the
alleged electrical input signal (i.e., a STAMP signal) to transmitting coil 87
for transmission.
3
Appeal 2015-001980
Application 13/424,524
Crosby discloses a wearable speech processor (WSP) in which an
audio signal is “amplified and processed by the WSP front end 81” and a
STAMP signal is “produced.” (Crosby, col. 26,11. 25—27; see also id.
Figs. 17, 18.) As noted by the Appellant (see Appeal Br 5), the STAMP
signal is “a voltage used to determine the amplitude of stimulation on [a]
selected electrode.” (Crosby, col. 26,11. 32—33.) As also noted by the
Appellant (see Appeal Br. 5—6), an analog-to-digital converter 83, under the
control of a multiplexer 92, converts the STAMP signal “into numbers for
use by [an] encoder.” (Crosby, col. 26,11. 43—45; see also id. Fig. 17.)
Crosby also discloses that its encoder operates by way of a program
including a stored “map” of the “amplitude of stimulation” for “each
electrode,” and “[t]he stimulation amplitude is related to STAMP differently
for each electrode, according to stimulation thresholds for that electrode.”
(Id., col. 26,11. 49-55; see also id. Fig. 8.) And Crosby depicts its encoder
chip 82 as delivering data to an output stage 85 “which is connected via a
coaxial cable 86 to the transmitting coil 87.” (Id., col. 27,11. 2—5, see also
id. Fig. 17.)
In short, the signals provided to Crosby’s transmitting coil 87
correspond to the encoded data delivered to output stage 85, not the STAMP
signals produced by the WSP front end 81. As such, regardless of what the
Examiner calls the respective STAMP signals,4 neither is provided to
4 The Examiner maintains that the claim language “an electric input signal
containing an audio information received from an external microphone” can
be broadly interpreted to encompass a STAMP signal when Crosby’s
switch 120 is one of its positions. (See Non-Final Action 4.) Be this as it
may, independent claim 1 still recites that the bypass mode “provides” this
signal to the “transmitter for transmission.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
4
Appeal 2015-001980
Application 13/424,524
Crosby’s transmitting coil 87 for transmission. The Examiner does not,
therefore, sufficiently establish that Crosby discloses the “bypass mode”
recited in independent claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Crosby.
The Examiner’s further findings with respect to dependent claims 6—8
(see Non-Final Action 6—8) do not compensate for the above-discussed
shortcoming in the rejection of independent claim 1. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Crosby; and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crosby.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 6—8.
REVERSED
5