Ex Parte Taenzer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 4, 2011

10812718 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 4, 2011)

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