Ex Parte UdesenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201713734882 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) 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. 13/734,882 01/04/2013 Jesper UDESEN GNR P2060 DK US 5706 86107 7590 11/27/2017 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (GN Resound) 2160 Lundy Avenue Suite 230 San Jose, CA 95131 EXAMINER ROBINSON, RYAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2017 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): docketing@viplawgroup.com ev@viplawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESPER UDESEN (Applicant: GN Hearing A/S) Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—7, 9-13, 17—20, 22, 24, and 27, which are all of the claims pending in the application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Examiner has stated that claims 8 and 14—16 are allowable and claims 21, 23, 25, and 26 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 15. Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a hearing aid system that includes a pair of spectacles (i.e., eyeglasses) with microphones for picking up audio to be amplified. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 53—54.2 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A spectacle hearing device system comprising: a first hearing instrument, the first hearing instrument having a first wireless hearing instrument transceiver and a first acoustic output transducer; a pair of spectacles having a temple, the pair of spectacles comprising a first wireless spectacle transceiver, and a first plurality of microphones, the first plurality of microphones forming a first directional microphone array wherein the first directional microphone array is configured for generating a first electrical signal from acoustic signals picked up by the first plurality of microphones, and wherein the first wireless spectacle transceiver and/or the first directional microphone array is located in a portion of the temple of the pair of spectacles; a first processor for processing the first electrical signal according to a hearing loss compensation prescription; and a first amplifier for applying the first electrical signal to the first acoustic output transducer; wherein the first wireless spectacle transceiver is configured for transmitting the first electrical signal wirelessly to the first hearing instrument. 2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed January 4, 2013 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed May 18, 2016; (3) the Advisory Action (Adv. Act.) mailed August 11, 2016; (4) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed November 21, 2016; (5) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 20, 2017; and (6) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed April 20, 2017. 2 Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1—3, 5—7, 10, 11, 17—20, 22, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weidner (DE 10 2008 031 581 Al; published Jan. 14, 2010) and Gorder (EP 1 017 252 A2; published July 5, 2000). Final Act. 2—10. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weidner, Gorder, and Solum (US 8,442,248 B2; issued May 14, 2013). Final Act. 10—12. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weidner and Shannon et al. (US 5,159,639; issued Oct. 27, 1992). Final Act. 12-13. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weidner, Solum, and Matsuo et al. (US 2013/0223250 Al; published Aug. 29, 2013). Final Act. 13—14. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1). ISSUES 1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weidner and Gorder teaches “the first wireless spectacle transceiver and/or the first directional microphone array is located in a portion of the temple of the pair of spectacles,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 5 and 10? 2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weidner and Shannon teaches “the housing comprises a slot for accommodating a portion of the temple,” as recited in claim 9? 3 Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken; (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action, and (3) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Issue 1: Claims 1—7, 10—13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 24 Appellant contends the Examiner erred by finding the combination of Weidner and Gorder teaches “the first wireless spectacle transceiver and/or the first directional microphone array is located in a portion of the temple of the pair of spectacles,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 5 and 10. App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 1—5. Specifically, Appellant argues Weidner’s “microphone is clearly a separate device that is attached externally to the temple” of a pair of spectacles and so does not teach a “microphone being ‘in’ a portion of the temple” of the spectacles. Reply Br. 3; see App. Br. 9. Additionally, Appellant argues “the teaching of Gorder would not have led one skilled in the art to place the microphone 11/21 within the frame 30 of Weidner.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4—5. Further, Appellant argues “moving the microphones 11,21 of Weidner into [Weidner’s] frame 30 will actually render the device of Weidner inoperable for its intended purpose.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4—5. 4 Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Weidner teaches a detachable microphone module 11, i.e., a “portion of the temple,” attached to a pair of spectacles for transmitting data to a hearing aid. Ans. 15 (citing Weidner 128, Fig. 2); Final Act. 2—3 (citing Weidner 127, 32). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Weidner teaches microphone module 11 includes microphones 60. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Weidner 132); see Weidner Fig. 2. Morevore, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Gorder teaches “that a microphone can be placed within a housing.” Ans. 16; Adv. Act. 2; Final Act. 3 (citing Gorder 3:52—53 Fig. 2); see Gorder 3:30—31. The Examiner combines the teachings of Weidner and Gorder, placing Weidner’s microphones 60 “inside the temple portions 11 and 21,” i.e., microphone modules 11 and 21. Ans. 16—17. Appellant’s argument that Weidner’s “detachable” microphone does not teach “a portion of the temple” (Reply. Br. 3) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The Specification does not define, let alone mention, the temples of spectacles or portions of the temples of spectacles. Rather, the only mention of “temple” in the Specification is in reference to the temple on a human head. Spec. 172 (“During use, the wireless spectacle transceiver device 42 is mounted onto the spectacle side bar 41 as suggested in the foregoing, being positioned next to the temple of a hearing instrument user.”). Moreover, the claims explicitly recite that a detachable component is within the scope of “a portion of the temple.” Specifically, as the Examiner correctly notes (Ans. 15), claim 22, which depends from claim 1, recites “the portion of the temple is detachably attachable to another portion of the temple.” As such, taking a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of “a portion of the temple,” in light of the Specification, we determine Weidner’s 5 Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 microphone module 11, which is “detachably mounted” and “connected firmly” to “spectacle arm[] 31” (Weidner || 19, 27—28), teaches “a portion of the temple of the pair of spectacles” within the meaning of the claim. Additionally, Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to place microphones in Weidner’s spectacle frame (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4—5) and that placing microphones in Weidner’s spectacle frame renders “Weidner inoperable for its intended purpose” (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4— 5); however, Appellant does not present any persuasive evidence or any argument addressing the Examiner’s combination which places microphones in the housing of Weidner’s microphone modules 11, 12 (Ans. 16). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the combination of Weidner and Gorder teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 5 and 10. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 10, as well as 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) the rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 11—13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 27, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 10. Issue 2: Claims 9 and 19 Appellant contends the Examiner erred by finding the combination of Weidner and Shannon teaches “the housing comprises a slot for accommodating a portion of the temple,” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 10— 12; Reply Br. 5—7. Specifically, Appellant argues Shannon’s “housing 72 with the chamber 90 housing the electronic components actually does not have any slot for accommodating a portion of the temple.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6. Appellant further argues that Shannon’s carrier 22 has a “slot 6 Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 3 8 for accommodating a portion of a temple” but that “carrier 22 is separate and different from the housing 72 (of the instrument 20 containing the electronics).” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Weidner teaches a pair of spectacles with an attached microphone module. Ans. 15 (citing Weidner 128, Fig. 2); Final Act. 2—3 (citing Weidner 132). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Shannon teaches “an attachment for spectacle temples,” in particular, a “housing compris[ing] a slot (38) for accommodating a portion of the temple.” Final Act. 13 (citing Shannon 4:13—15); see Shannon Figs. 1—2. The Examiner combines Weidner’s microphone module and spectacles with Shannon’s slot to teach a microphone module attached to spectacles via a slot in the microphone module. Id. Appellant’s argument that Shannon’s slot 38 of carrier 22 is not “part of the housing 72” of electronic components (App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 6— 7), does not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner relies on Shannon to teach a housing slot is used as “an attachment [technique] for spectacle temples.” Final Act. 13. Based on Shannon’s teaching, the Examiner then combines Weidner’s microphone module to Weidner’s spectacles using a slot taught by Shannon. Id. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Weidner with Shannon’s teaching of “a known technique for attaching a device to spectacle temples” (id.) to result in Weidner’s microphone module housing “compris[ing] a slot for accommodating a portion of the temple.” 7 Appeal 2017-007598 Application 13/734,882 Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the combination of Weidner and Gorder teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 9. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 9, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 19, which is not argued separately. See App. Br. 12. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9—13, 17—20, 22, 24, and 27. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation