Ex Parte Waite et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12189967 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/189,967 08/12/2008
53609 7590 09/01/2016
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P,C
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas C. Waite
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.
506077 7957
EXAMINER
FLETCHER, MARLON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS C. WAITE and ATUL G. KELKAR1
Appeal2015-001164
Application 12/189,967
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 rejecting claims 1-20 in the above-identified application. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Iowa State
University Research Foundation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Non-Final Office Action, Feb. 14, 2014 [hereinafter Action]; see also
Appeal Br. 1. Claims 1-20 were previously rejected in the Final Office
Action dated July 8, 2013.
Appeal2015-001164
Application 12/189,967
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to a control circuit for controlling
switching devices. Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1 is representative:
1. An active noise control system, comprising:
a first microphone configured to sense a sound input
in an audible spectrum, wherein the sound input
comprises a disturbance noise portion;
a controller operably coupled to the first microphone,
the controller comprising a selection unit and an output
unit operably coupled to the selection unit, wherein the
selection unit is configured to determine the disturbance
noise portion of the sound input based on a highest
frequency level of the sound input, and wherein the
output unit is configured to remove the disturbance noise
portion from the sound input to generate a filtered sound
input; and
a speaker operably coupled to the controller, the
speaker configured to generate a speaker output based on
the filtered sound input.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1 (emphasis added). Claims 8 and 14 are also
independent, and contain language substantially similar to the phrase
emphasized above. See id. at 2-3.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Pub.
No. US 2003/00228019 Al (published Dec. 11, 2003) [hereinafter Eichler]
in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0222192 Al
(published Oct. 5, 2006) [hereinafter Matthey]. Action 3-5.
II. Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eichler in view of Matthey and U.S. Patent
2
Appeal2015-001164
Application 12/189,967
Application Publication No. US 2008/0137874 Al (published June 12,
2008) [hereinafter Christoph]. Action 5.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Eichler teaches limitations of claims 1, 8, and
14, including a selection unit that "is configured to determine the
disturbance noise portion of the sound input based on a substantially high
frequency level of the sound input." Action 3 (citing Eichler Abstract, i-f 73).
Although the Examiner finds that Eichler does not "disclose that the
disturbance noise is based on the highest frequency level of sound input,"
Action 4, the Examiner finds that Matthey teaches a noise filtering system
that "suppresses the undesired higher harmonics, which is based on the
highest energy or frequency," id. at 4--5 (citing Matthey i-f 40). The
Examiner determines that
Id. at 5.
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at time of the invention to utilize the teachings of
Matthey with Eichler et al., because the noise disturbance
is determine[d] based on the highest frequency of the
input, which allows filtering or removal of the
disturbance noise based thereupon.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that
Matthey teaches that the selected "disturbance noise portion" of the sound
input is "based on a highest frequency level of the sound input," as required
by claims 1, 8, and 14. See Appeal Br. 6-8. Matthey describes listening
devices in which "signal processing steps are usually carried out in blocks at
regular time intervals." Matthey i-f 5. This processing may "generate an
unwanted noise signal at a particular frequency, namely the frequency of the
3
Appeal2015-001164
Application 12/189,967
block processing." Id. The noise signal may also appear at harmonics of the
block processing frequency. See id. Matthey teaches a method of removing
this undesired noise by filtering the signal at the block processing frequency
and its higher harmonics. See id. at 40.
Therefore, while Matthey teaches a method for filtering intemally-
generated noise that results from block processing, the Examiner has not
pointed to any teaching of Matthey that involves determination of the
disturbance noise portion of a "sound input" as required by claims 1, 8, and
14. In addition, while the Examiner has noted that Matthey filters out
"higher harmonics" of the block processing frequency, the Examiner has not
explicitly explained how any of these harmonics constitutes "a highest
frequency level of the sound input" as required by claims 1, 8, and 14.
Consequently, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible
error in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, as well as claims 2, 3 and 5-7
which depend from claim 1, claims 9 and 11-13 which depend from claim 8,
and claims 15 and 17-20 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 14.
Because the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect to claims 4,
10, and 16 do not cure the above deficiencies, we also find that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claims 4, 10, and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4