Ex Parte Doclo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

12846677 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/846,677 07/29/2010
65913 7590 04/29/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Simon Doclo
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.
81380396US03 2411
EXAMINER
ZHANG, LESHUI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMON DOCLO
Appeal2014-007971
Application 12/846,677
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-12, 14, 16, and 17, which are all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-007971
Application 12/846,677
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to noise reduction. See generally Spec.
1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of active noise reduction, the method
compnsmg:
receiving an audio signal to be played;
receiving at least one noise signal from at least one
microphone, said at least one noise signal being indicative of an
ambient noise; and
generating a noise cancellation signal depending on both
said audio signal and said at least one noise signal, wherein the
noise cancellation signal reduces an intensity of the ambient
noise in frequency regions where the ambient noise is not
masked by the audio signal.
Reference and Rejection
Kierstein US 2009/0074199 Al 1\1ar. 19, 2009
Claims 1-12, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kierstein.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments,
and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Kierstein discloses "wherein the noise
2
Appeal2014-007971
Application 12/846,677
cancellation signal reduces an intensity of the ambient noise in frequency
regions where the ambient noise is not masked by the audio signal," as
recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds Kierstein discloses
"producing noise cancellation signal y(n) combined with masking signal
v(n) and cancelling noise portion from primary path 2 in fig. 1 and p.3, para
42" with respect to the italicized claim element. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to adequately map the
italicized claim element, and that paragraph 42 fails to show Kierstein
teaches that claim element. See App. Br. 13-14.
In the Answer, the Examiner does not specifically respond to
Appellant's argument. Instead, the Examiner finds Kierstein teaches
"generating a psycho-acoustic masking signal v(n) having higher intensity in
certain frequency ranges and provided to the speaker 6 for frequency
masking effect in fig. 1 and p. 3, para 44) and remaining unmasked noise
portion is further reduced by the noise cancellation signal for better
performance." Ans. 9 (emphasis added). As pointed out by Appellant, such
finding relates to creating a higher intensity signal to provide a masking
effect, which does not disclose the italicized claim element. See Reply Br. 4.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-8
for similar reasons.
1 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-007971
Application 12/846,677
Independent claim 9 recites a claim limitation that is substantively the
same as the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claim 9. Therefore, for
similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claim 9, and corresponding dependent claims 10-12, 14, 16,
and 17.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14, 16, and
17.
REVERSED
4