Ex Parte Doss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

10810082 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT L. DOSS JR., DAVID LASHLEY, and BILLY J. WORLEY ____________ Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-27. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. INVENTION This invention relates to systems and methods for reducing squealing or feedback on amplified telephones. (Spec. 1). Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A telephone system, comprising: a transmitter in communication with a transmit signal path; a receiver in communication with a receive signal path, the receiver having associated therewith a receiver gain; a receiver gain detector configured to detect the receiver gain, the telephone system having a receiver stability level associated therewith; and a controller in communication with the receiver gain detector, the controller being configured to selectively operate the telephone system in a full duplex mode in response to the receiver gain being approximately less than the receiver stability level and to selectively operate the telephone system in an adaptive duplex mode in response to the receiver gain being approximately above the receiver stability level, the adaptive duplex mode being such that an adaptive attenuation level alternately applied on the receive signal and transmit signal paths is dependent upon the level by which the receiver gain exceeds the receiver stability level. (Disputed limitation emphasized). Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 3 19. An adaptive duplexing method, comprising: detecting a receiver gain level selected by a user on a telephone, the telephone having a receiver stability level associated therewith; and controlling the telephone to selectively operate in full duplex in response to the receiver gain level being approximately less than the receiver stability level and to selectively operate in adaptive duplex in response to the receiver gain being at least the receiver stability level, the adaptive duplex being such that an adaptive attenuation level alternately applied on a receive signal path and a transmit signal path of the telephone is dependent upon a level by which the receiver gain level exceeds the receiver stability level. (Disputed limitation emphasized). REJECTION Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naddell (U.S. Patent 5,450,618) in view of Arnaud (U.S. Patent Re. 36,934). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 1-18 on the basis of claims 1 and 10 respectively. Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7), we will decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 19-27 on the basis of claim 19. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 4 ANALYSIS A. Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested: the controller being configured to selectively operate the telephone system in a full duplex mode in response to the receiver gain being approximately less than the receiver stability level and to selectively operate the telephone system in an adaptive duplex mode in response to the receiver gain being approximately above the receiver stability level, within the meaning of claim 1, and the similar language of claim 10? Appellants contend: With respect to the full duplex mode, Naddell's controller operates the telephone system in a full duplex mode not only in response to the user depressing the mode button 106, but also regardless of the volume level setting (e.g., the receiver gain, as recited in independent claim 1), and thus certainly not in response to the receiver gain being approximately less than the receiver stability level, as generally recited in independent claim 1. . . . With respect to the half duplex mode, Naddell's controller similarly operates the telephone system in a half duplex mode purely and exclusively in response to the mode button being not depressed (i.e., in an extended position) by the user, and not in response to the receiver gain being approximately above the receiver stability level. (App. Br. 5-6). Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 5 The Examiner disagrees: Naddell sets the telephone to a particular volume level when the mode switch is depressed, and causes the telephone to operate in full-duplex mode. As discussed supra, because these two variables change together, they have an ambiguous cause-and- effect relationship. A designer may intend for the resulting volume to require a particular communication mode, or vice versa. Regardless of which intention a designer favors, the disclosed invention corresponds to the claimed invention. (Ans. 13). Appellants' arguments are persuasive because claim 1 expressly requires that the controller is configured to operate in full or adaptive duplex mode "in response to the receiver gain being" less than or above the receiver stability level, respectively. In contrast, Naddell's controller is configured to operate the telephone system in response to the user setting the position of the volume/mode button. (Naddell col. 2, l. 64 to col. 3, l. 8; App. Br. 5-6). For this reason, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of claim 10, which has similar language. Associated dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 stand therewith. B. Issue: Under Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "controlling the telephone to selectively operate in full duplex in response to the receiver gain level being approximately less than the receiver stability level and to selectively operate in adaptive duplex in response to the receiver gain being at least the receiver stability level," within the meaning of claim 19? Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 6 Appellants contend: Independent [claim] 19 recite[s] elements similar to those discussed above with reference to independent claim 1. Thus the discussion above similarly applies to independent claims 10 and 19 and is not repeated herein for purposes of clarity. (App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 7). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants' arguments regarding claim 1 are not commensurate with the broader scope of claim 19. Specifically, method claim 19 does not require a controller to perform the controlling step. As such, it would have been obvious for Naddell's user to perform the limitation at issue by controlling the telephone to operate in a duplex mode in response to the receiver stability level (feedback/squeal level) by setting Naddell's volume/mode button if/when the user hears feedback/squeal from the telephone. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 and of claims 20-27, which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2010-005714 Application 10/810,082 7 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART tkl