Ex Parte Mauger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2019

13287112 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/287, 112 11/01/2011 110239 7590 02/04/2019 Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC 9801 Washingtonian Blvd., Suite 750 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stefan J. Mauger 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. 3065.0227C 1091 EXAMINER SAINT CYR, LEONARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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): epatent@usiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEP AN J. MAUGER, ADAM A. HERSBACH, PAM W. DAWSON, and JOHN M. HEASMAN1 Appeal2017-004009 Application 13/287,112 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. 1 Appellants identify Cochlear Limited, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-004009 Application 13/287,112 DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 18, and 21. Claims 3---6, 8-12, 14--16, 19, and 20 were rejected in the Final Action, but that rejection has been withdrawn and the claims allowed. Answer 9. Claim 17 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appx.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b)(l). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants' Specification relates to sound processing, specifically, noise reduction in a sound processing system, e.g., for a cochlear implant, hearing aid, or other device that provides stimulation to an element of a recipient's ear. Spec. ,r,r 2, 3, 5. A sound signal including a noise component and a desired component is received as input. Id. ,r 30. A noise reduction process applies a gain level to the signal that at least partially cancels the noise component of the signal. Id. ,r 48. Appellants describe prior art gain functions for processing the input signal as having "treated errors of including noise and errors of reducing speech as equal." Id. ,r,r 12 8, 13 5. Appellants describe unexpected results in improved speech perception for cochlear implant recipients when providing a higher gain threshold in processing the input signal. Id. ,r,r 128-141. Generally, Appellants argue that where prior art systems attempt to minimize total distortion, a higher distortion ratio (speech distortion divided by noise distortion) provides improved speech perception for cochlear implant recipients. Id. ,r,r 150, 151, 156-165, Figs. 18, 19, 20A-2C. 2 Appeal2017-004009 Application 13/287,112 Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary: 1. A method of operating an electrical stimulation hearing prosthesis having an array of electrodes, the method compnsmg: generating a noise-reduced signal from a sound signal by reducing noise distortion in the sound signal while increasing speech distortion in the sound signal; based on the noise-reduced signal, generating a control signal for controlling stimulation by at least one electrode of the array of electrodes; and using the control signal to cause the at least one electrode of the array of electrodes to provide the stimulation. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over a combination of Hersbach (US 2010/0310084 Al; published Dec. 9, 2010) and Vries et al. (US 2004/0047474 Al; published Mar. 11, 2004, hereinafter "Vries"). Final Action 6-8. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-201 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 has been withdrawn. Answer 9. ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Vries, in combination with Hersbach, teaches or suggests "generating a noise-reduced signal from a sound signal by reducing noise distortion in the sound signal while increasing speech distortion in the sound signal," as recited in claim 1? 3 Appeal2017-004009 Application 13/287,112 Vries describes providing user-specific mediation of an input to a hearing prosthesis by taking into account both the user's hearing loss, and the user's signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss. Vries, Abstract. An SNR loss is a loss of ability to understand high level speech when combined with ambient noise, in comparison with normal hearing individuals. Id. ,r 3. Vries describes that a variable a "represents the desired, or target, amount of noise reduction that a particular hearing impaired individual ... should be provided with to restore their hearing ability ... in noise to a predetermined level of performance." Id. ,r 73. Vries further describes setting a to a level which is not so low that the patient does not recover speech intelligibility in noise, but not so high that the input signal is compromised by the increased distortion of noise reduction at greater values of a. Id. ,r,r 78-84. The Examiner finds that Vries teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, because Vries "reduce[ s] noise distortion while increas[ing] speech intelligibility." Final Action 6-7. The Examiner further finds that while reduced noise distortion is obtained, there is "increase[ d] speech distortion in the sound signal, since white noise is added to the sound signal during the noise reduction process." Answer 10-11. However, the only discussion of white noise in Vries is as one possible noise component of a stored set of representative sound segments used for training, as opposed to use in the operative phase of the system. Vries ,r,r 63, 64, 66. The noise component is already present in the sound signal during training, rather than added to a sound signal. Id. ,r,r 64. Appellants argue that Vries merely teaches that in setting values of a, there is a tradeoff between unintelligibility (low a) and distortion of the entire sound signal (high a). Appeal Br. 15-16. Appellants further argue 4 Appeal2017-004009 Application 13/287,112 that Vries does not discuss the concepts of "noise distortion" versus "speech distortion" or teach or suggest a trade-off between the two parameters. Id. We agree with Appellants. Vries addresses the ability to understand high level speech in noise, and describes a tradeoff between intelligibility and distortion. The cited portions of Vries do not describe a reduction in noise distortion with an accompanying increase in speech distortion. While the Examiner finds that this would be inherent in Vries, the only explanation provided of such inherency, relating to white noise, appears to be mistaken. See Answer 10-11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2, 7, 13, 18, and 21, rejected and argued on similar bases. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over the combination ofHersbach and Vries. REVERSED 5