Ex Parte Straeussnigg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

14075225 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/075,225 11/08/2013
51092 7590 08/27/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dietmar Straeussnigg
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
INFAP597US 1004
EXAMINER
MCKINNEY, ANGELICA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIETMAR STRAEUSSNIGG and
ANDREAS WIESBAUER
(Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG)
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/07 5,225 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-24. App. Br. 2. Claims 4 and 11 have been
canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 References herein to "Appellants" are to the applicant, Infineon
Technologies AG, also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a microphone package and method for
generating a microphone signal. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A microphone package for providing a modified
microphone signal, comprising:
a microphone;
an equalizer device coupled to the microphone, wherein
the equalizer device is configured to modify a microphone signal
within the equalizer device such that a signal-to-noise ratio of the
modified microphone signal is increased; and
a common housing enclosing the microphone and the
equalizer device at least partly.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nielsen
Li
Theuss
Nair
Parkins
US 2003/0053646 Al Mar. 20, 2003
US 2006/0206320 Al Sept. 14, 2006
US 2008/0298621 Al Dec. 4, 2008
US 2012/0155667 Al Jun. 21, 2012
US 2014/0198932 Al Jul. 17, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parkins. Final Act. 4--7.
Claims 7, 10, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parkins in view of Theuss. Final Act. 7-12.
2
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
Claims 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parkins in view of Nair. Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parkins and Li. Final Act. 13-15.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parkins and Nielsen. Final Act. 15.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Parkins discloses
"wherein the equalizer device is configured to modify a microphone signal
within the equalizer device such that a signal-to-noise ratio of the modified
microphone signal is increased," as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Parkins discloses "a
common housing enclosing the microphone and the equalizer device at least
partly," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the equalizer device is
configured to modify a microphone signal within the equalizer device such
that a signal-to-noise ratio of the modified microphone signal is increased."
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). In finding claim 1 anticipated by Parkins,
the Examiner states "Parkins teaches a microphone that sends a signal to an
equalizer circuit for attenuating the frequency region of the boosted signal,
and the signal-to-noise ratio of the microphone output is increased by the
resonator in combination with the equalizer circuit." Ans. 15 ( citing Parkins
3
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
,r 27 and Fig. 4). Thus, the Examiner finds the claimed "equalizer device" is
disclosed by the equalization circuit 34 and resonator 20 shown in Parkins'
Figure 4. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because "the equalizer
device in Parkins is configured to attenuate or modify a frequency response
of the boosted signal." App. Br. 5. Appellants further argue "the signal-to-
noise ratio of the microphone signal is increased by the acoustic resonator
(i.e., the protective housing) and not by the modification of the microphone
signal within the equalizer device, as required in claim 1." App. Br. 6
( emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, which rests on the
flawed premise that only the equalization circuit 34 in Parkins can
correspond to the recited "equalizer device." As explained by the Examiner,
the recited "equalization device" need not be limited to Parkins' equalization
circuit 34. Ans. 15. An "equalization device," within the meaning of
Appellants' claims, may encompass more than just an equalizer or
equalization circuit. Specifically, Appellants' Specification describes that
"[ s Jome example embodiments comprise an infinite impulse response filter
(IIR) within the equalization device." Spec. ,r 28. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the recited "equalization device" encompasses an equalizer
along with additional signal processing components, and that the
Specification contemplates an embodiment in which "the combination of the
equalizer and the filter ... increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the modified
microphone signal." Ans. 15. In the same way, Parkins discloses a
structure, namely an equalization circuit 34 together with resonator 20,
which increases the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal within it. Because the
4
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
resonator 20 forms part of the "equalization device," the modification of the
signal by the resonator2 is "within the equalizer device." Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Parkins discloses this
limitation.
Second Issue
Appellants also challenge the Examiner's finding that Parkins
discloses "a common housing enclosing the microphone and the equalizer
device at least partly," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds "Parkins
teaches enclosure 32 enclosing a microphone 40 and an equalizer circuit 34
and resonator 20 (Fig. 4). Therefore, Parkins['] enclosure reads on the
claimed common housing." Ans. 16.
Appellants argue "[t]o the extent the resonator is Parkins is interpreted
as the 'common housing' in claim 1, the resonator in Parkins cannot be
within the equalizer circuit in Parkins." App. Br. 6 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants also argue:
Further, if the resonator (i.e., the chamber 20 defined by housing
32) is part of the equalizer device, as alleged in the Examiner's
Answer, then the equalizer device (i.e., the circuit 34 and housing
32 as would be required in the interpretation set forth in the
Examiner's Answer) are not further enclosed partially or entirely
by a further common housing as required by limitation (2) of
claim 1.
Reply Br. 2.
2 We note Appellants acknowledge that the resonator causes the recited
modification. App. Br. 6 ("Clearly, this shows that the signal-to-noise ratio
of the microphone signal is increased by the acoustic resonator."). As we
noted above, Appellants' argument wrongly presumes that the resonator
cannot form part of the "equalization device."
5
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants' first
argument is not persuasive because it does not address the finding made by
the Examiner. In particular, Appellants' first argument wrongly
characterizes the Examiner's position as finding Parkins resonator 20 is the
recited "common housing." App. Br. 2. But the Examiner has made no
such finding. Rather, the Examiner finds the resonator 20, which, together
with equalization circuit 34, forms the claimed "equalizer device," is
enclosed, along with the microphone 40 by enclosure 32. Ans. 16 (citing
Parkins Fig. 4). Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' second argument.
Appellants contend that because the resonator 20 is defined by enclosure 32,
it cannot be "enclosed partially or entirely" by a common housing.
Effectively, Appellants argue the enclosure 32 is the resonator, and it cannot
enclose itself. However, this characterization of Parkins is not supported by
the teaching of the reference. The resonator 20, while perhaps defined by
the enclosure 32, is not the enclosure itself. Moreover, Parkins discloses that
"the enclosure could be a separate component from the outer surface that
attaches to the outer surface." Parkins ,r 43. As such, even if Appellants
were correct that the enclosure 32 is part of the resonator 20, Parkins would
nevertheless disclose a "common housing" that partially encloses the
resonator 20 and microphone 40. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 2---6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 21 (under§ 102) and claims 14--
20 (under § 103) for which Appellants offer no separate arguments for
patentability.
6
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
Remaining Argument
Appellants assert that "[c]laims 1---6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 21 were rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over [Parkins] in view of
[Killion], in further view of [Visser et al]" and argues the combination of
Parkins with Killion and Visser is improper. App Br. 7. However, we do
not identify any such rejection made by the Examiner. Rather, the Examiner
refers to Killion and Visser as evidence in support of the rejection made
under§ 102. See Ans. 16; see also Advisory Act. 2 (continuation sheet). It
appears that Appellants have understood the Examiner's references to
Killion and Visser as forming the basis of a rejection under§ 103-a
rejection not made by the Examiner. Accordingly, these arguments are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants correctly identify claims 7, 10, and 22-24 as standing
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parkins and
Theuss. However, Appellants' arguments against these rejections are
substantially the same as those presented in connection with the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). See App. Br. 9-10. For the same reasons, we
are not persuaded by these arguments and we sustain their rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-24.
7
Appeal 2018-001889
Application 14/075,225
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8