Ex Parte TaenzerDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 4, 201110812718 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 4, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 10/812,718 03/29/2004 Jon C. Taenzer GNN P745 US2 3745 84561 7590 03/07/2011 Vista IP Law Group, LLP 1885 Lundy Ave., Suite 108 San Jose, CA 95131 EXAMINER LEE, PING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JON C. TAENZER _____________ Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, THOMAS S. HAHN, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 17-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to sound enhancement of microphones by determining a weighting ratio in accordance with the ratio of noise power in binaural signals. Control signals are applied to respective attenuators to cause the right and left ear input signals to be attenuated in proportion to the input signal’s weighting ratio. The attenuated versions of the input signals are then applied to a summing block, which sums the attenuated signals to produce an output signal applied to both ears. See Spec. 3, 6). Claim 17, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 17. A method of achieving directional pickup of a radiated energy signal using a shadowing effect created by an energy propagation barrier, the method comprising: locating a first sensor on one side of the barrier and a second sensor on an opposite side of the barrier; determining a difference between amplitudes of signals respectively produced by the first and second sensors; adjusting the amplitudes of the signals based on the determined amplitude difference to produce adjusted signals; and summing together the adjusted signals to produce a directional signal. Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Brennan US 6,240,192 B1 May 29, 2001 Klootsema US 6,697,494 B1 Feb. 24, 2004 Welker, Microphone-Array Hearing Aids with Binaural Output – Part II: A Two-Microphone Adaptive System, IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, Vol. 5, No. 6, Nov. 1997, pp. 543-551 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. The Examiner rejected claims 17-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Welker. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 17, 18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klootsema. ISSUES The pivotal issues are whether: 1. Appellant’s Specification provides supporting written descriptions for the limitations of: determining a difference between amplitudes of signals respectively produced by the first and second sensors; . . . and summing together the adjusted signals to produce a directional signal. 2. Welker teaches the limitation of “adjusting the amplitudes of the signals based on the determined amplitude difference to produce adjusted signals;” and Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 4 3. Klootsema teaches or suggests the limitation of “adjusting the amplitudes of the signals based on the determined amplitude difference to produce adjusted signals.” ANALYSIS Analysis with respect to claims 17-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph Appellant argues (App. Br. 5) that the Specification describes determining amplitude difference between right ear and left ear signals in relation to head shadowing effect (Spec. 15:18-21). Appellant also argues (App. Br. 5) that the Specification discusses the beamforming technique based on head shadowing effect to optimize signal-to-noise ratio, and adjusting amplitudes in a beamformer embodiment (Spec. 15:5-14). Appellants point to Figures 15, 16, 19, and 20, and their corresponding passages that discuss interaural difference, and adjusting signals based on the interaural difference. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The portion of Appellant’s Specification that mentions amplitude difference is with respect to head shadowing which is an amplitude difference “caused by the head” (Spec. 15:18-21). Thus, there is no written disclosure regarding how to determine a difference between amplitudes of signals respectively produced by the first and second sensors as recited in claims 17 and 23, because this is a process naturally occurring in the head. We further agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 6-7) that none of the Specification sections cited by Appellant provide supporting written descriptions for the limitation of Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 5 “determining a difference between amplitudes of signals respectively produced by the first and second sensors.” Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 23, and claims 18-22 and 24-35 respectively fall with claims 17 and 23. Analysis with respect to claims 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Welker Appellant argues (App. Br. 5-6) that Welker does not disclose adjusting amplitudes of signals (i.e., both the left and right signals) based on a determined amplitude difference (i.e., the same amplitude difference). Appellant explains that Welker’s Figure 2 shows that fL is added to signal fR at the top line, and the signal fL is subtracted from signal fR at the bottom line. Appellant further clarifies (Reply Br. 3) that even if the Examiner’s analogy of the x and y signals as constituting the adjusted signals based on the amplitude difference of (fR- fL) is correct, then Welker would fail to disclose or suggest summing the adjusted signals (i.e., x+y) as required by independent claims 17 and 23. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27. Analysis with respect to claims 17, 18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klootsema. Appellant argues (App. Br. 6) that while Klootsema discloses matching the levels of microphone signal, the reference does not teach or Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 6 suggest determining an amplitude difference so that the signals may be adjusted. Appellant explains that two signals may be matched by taking an average of two signals or by making them equal to one another (App. Br. 6), which would not require determining an amplitude difference. We agree with Appellant that the disclosure of matching signals does not teach or suggest determining an amplitude difference. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 4) that from the record before us we cannot determine whether the amplitude difference is part of the shifting technique of Klootsema. Nor can we find any evidence that both the left and the right signals are adjusted by the same amplitude difference. Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 18, 23, and 24. CONCLUSIONS 1. Appellant’s Specification does not provide supporting written descriptions for the limitations of: determining a difference between amplitudes of signals respectively produced by the first and second sensors; . . . and summing together the adjusted signals to produce a directional signal. 2. Welker does not teach the limitation of “adjusting the amplitudes of the signals based on the determined amplitude difference to produce adjusted signals.” 3. Klootsema does not teach or suggest the limitation of “adjusting the amplitudes of the signals based on the determined amplitude difference to produce adjusted signals.” Appeal 2009-010487 Application 10/812,718 7 ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Welker is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klootsema is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(vi). AFFIRMED kis Vista IP Law Group, LLP 1885 Lundy Ave., Suite 108 San Jose, CA 95131 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation