Ex Parte Straeussnigg et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2019

14321475 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/321,475 07/01/2014
48154 7590 02/28/2019
SLATER MATSIL, LLP/Infineon
17950 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dietmar Straeussnigg
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.
INF 2014 P 50664 US 7335
EXAMINER
PATEL,DHAVAL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIETMAR STRAEUSSNIGG, ANDREAS WIESBAUER, and
CHRISTIAN JENKNER
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3--4, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-20. Claims 2, 5---6, 10, and 17 were
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphasis added):
1. A sensor device comprising:
a first sensor circuitry comprising an acoustic sensor
configured to generate a first sensor signal in a first frequency
band comprising frequencies higher than a frequency threshold;
a second sensor circuitry comprising a non-acoustic
sensor configured to generate at least one second sensor signal
in a non-overlapping second frequency band comprising
frequencies lower than the frequency threshold;
a sampling rate conversion circuitry to adapt a
sampling rate of the second sensor signal to a sampling rate
of the first sensor signal;
a combiner circuitry configured to combine the first
sensor signal and the at least one second sensor signal into a
combined sensor signal; and
an interface to output the combined sensor signal via a
single output line.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
Rejections on Appeal1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 14--16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Short (US 2008/0317260 Al;
published Dec. 25, 2008) ("Short"), Fifield et al. (US 2007 /0183547 Al;
published Aug. 9, 2007) ("Fifield"), and Myron et al. (US 6,415,205 Bl;
published July 2, 2002) ("Myron"). 2
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Short, Fifield, Myron, and Khenkin et al.
(US 2015/0350770 Al; published Dec. 3, 2015) ("Khenkin").
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Short, Fifield, Myron, and Garvey, III et al.
(US 2014/0324367 Al; published Oct. 30, 2014) ("Garvey").
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Short, Fifield, Myron, and Drouin et al.
(US 2014/0177674 Al; published June 26, 2014) ("Drouin").
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 20 as being obvious?
1 The patentability of claims 3--4, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-19 is not separately
argued by Appellants. See App. Br. 6-11. Thus, except for our ultimate
decision, claims 3--4, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-19 are not discussed further
herein.
2 Although the Final Office Action indicated that claim 2 was also rejected
(see Final Act. 5), claim 2 has been cancelled.
3
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference
between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference]
sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in
the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering
obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Further, it is well settled that "a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether
a secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Even further, one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
4
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Short teaches or suggests "a first sensor circuitry
comprising [a] sensor configured to generate a first sensor signal in a first
frequency band comprising frequencies higher than a frequency threshold,"
and "a second sensor circuitry comprising [a] sensor configured to generate
at least one second sensor signal in a non-overlapping second frequency
band comprising frequencies lower than the frequency threshold," as recited
in claim 1. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Short does not
explicitly disclose that one sensor is an acoustic sensor and the other sensor
is a non-acoustic sensor, but Myron teaches the combination of a sensor
signal from an acoustic sensor and a sensor signal from a non-acoustic
sensor. See Final Act. 4. As found by the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Short ( and Fifield) to
include a combination of a sensor signal from an acoustic sensor and a
sensor signal from a non-acoustic sensor in order to generate more reliable
sensor signals, as taught by Myron. See id.; see also Ans. 3-6.
Appellants contend the Examiner's findings are in error because:
Figure 13 of Short, to which the Office Action refers, shows two
pairs of transducer elements, i.e., three transducer elements 64,
66, 68, wherein one pair is widely spaced 64/68 for low
frequency estimates and one pair is narrowly spaced 64/66 for
high frequency estimates. See Short, paragraph [0117]; Figure
13. The microphone system of Figure 13 is similar to that of
Figure 7 (having only one pair of transducer elements) but the
functioning is pretty much the same. . .. As stated above, the
method ( of Figure 7 or Figure 13) is based on comparing
differences in magnitude ratios and time delays of sound signals
at the two pairs of transducers. Accordingly, it is crucial for
Short that the (three) transducer elements are all acoustic
5
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
transducers since otherwise no magnitude ratios and time
delays can be measured and calculated.
The M.P.E.P. teaches ... "[i]f the proposed modification would
render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to
make the proposed modification." In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See M.P.E.P. § 2143.0l(V).
Accordingly, if a skilled artisan would replace one of the
acoustic transducer elements of the microphone system of
Short with a non-acoustic transducer element of Myron, as
suggested by the Office Action, the microphone system of Short
would not be able to provide a distinction between desired and
undesired sound sources because the microphone system of
Short, modified by Myron, would not be able to measure and
calculate the magnitude ratios and time delays between the
transducer pairs since one transducer is not a sound
transducer. Accordingly, the proposed modification makes
Short unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
App. Br. 7-8 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added); see
also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellants' arguments
that a combination with Myron would render Short unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose are premised on requiring a physical or bodily
incorporation of Myron's entire collection of distinct sensors within the
microphone system of Short. This is not the standard for obviousness.
Instead, as previously described, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The rejection set forth
by the Examiner relied upon Myron for the more limited disclosure of
combining a received signal from an acoustic sensor with another received
signal from a non-acoustic sensor. See Final Act. 4; see also Myron 12:25-
6
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
34. We are not persuaded that the Examiner's proposed combination of
Short and Myron requires the bodily incorporation argued by Appellants.
Instead, the Examiner's proposed combination merely requires modifying
the microphone system to receive signal data from one or more non-acoustic
sensors, as disclosed in Myron, in addition to receiving signal data from
acoustic sensors (i.e., transducers), as disclosed in Short. Appellants fail to
persuasively establish that such a modification would render Short
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as such a modification would still
allow Short's microphone system to measure and calculate the magnitude
ratios and time delays between acoustic sensors and to provide a distinction
between desired and undesired sound sources.
The Examiner further finds that Short does not explicitly disclose "a
sampling rate conversion circuitry to adapt a sampling rate of the second
sensor signal to a sampling rate of the first sensor signal," as recited in claim
1, but Fifield teaches a sampling rate adjusting means for adjusting a sample
rate of an unwanted signal to be the same as a sampling rate of a wanted
signal. See Final Act. 3--4. As found by the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Short (and Myron) to
include a sampling rate adjusting means, as taught by Fifield. See Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 7-9.
Appellants further contend the Examiner's findings are in error
because:
Short is related to a sound discrimination method that is able to
distinguish between desired sound sources and undesired sound
sources (background noise). . . . Short shows band splitting so
that high frequencies above a pre-defined frequency from the
transducer element 66 are selected and low frequencies below the
same pre-defined frequency from the transducer element 68 are
7
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
selected 82/84 before they are combined 86. See Short, Figure
13; paragraphs [0119]-[0120]. Accordingly, Short shows non-
overlapping frequency bands.
Fifield shows signals in overlapping frequency bands. See
Fifield, Abstract. In particular, Fifield teaches a method for
cancelling an unwanted first (narrowband) signal having a
bandwidth that overlaps with a bandwidth of a second
(wideband) signal from that second (wideband) signal to
generate the wanted signal.
... Nowhere in Fifield is taught that these two signals are
processed in non-overlapping frequency bands.
The M.P .E.P. specifies that "the mere fact that references can be
combined or modified does not render the resultant combination
obvious unless the results would have been predictable to one of
ordinary skill in the art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
538, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See M.P.E.P. §
2143.01 (III).
Appellant notes that, as identified by the Office Action, the first
low frequency band and the second high frequency band in
Short are non-overlapping. Since the two frequency bands are
non-overlapping, there is no interference between the two
sensor signals each being in one of the frequency bands. Since
there is no interference between the two (low frequency and
high frequency) signals there is no motivation to reduce
interference between the two sensor signals. Further, Appellant
respectfully submits the adjusting the sampling rate does not do
anything to interference.
App. Br. 9-10 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added); see
also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Supreme Court has
rejected the rigid requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine references in order to show obviousness. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 419. Instead, a rejection based on obviousness only needs to be
8
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning"
to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim. Id. at 418.
Further, "[i]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill." Id. at 417. Consistent with the
Examiner's findings, both Short and Fifield disclose systems configured to
receive and combine multiple signals, and Fifield further discloses the
improvement of adjusting a sampling rate of one of two received signals to
be identical to a sampling rate of the other received signal. See Final Act. 3-
4; see also Short ,r,r 62, 65, 118; Fifield ,r,r 22, 24. As Appellants have not
shown that modifying Short's microphone system to include Fifield's
improvement of adjusting the sampling rate of one of the two received
signals to be identical to the other received signal would be beyond the skill
of a person ordinary skilled in the art, Appellants have failed to persuasively
establish that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 20, Appellants contend:
Appellant respectfully submits that the Office Action rejects
independent claim 20 with the arguments provided for claims 1
and 14. However, these arguments do not apply to claim 20
because claim 20 includes different subject matter (i.e.,
receiving and splitting rather than sending and combining)
than claims 1 and 14. Short and Fifield are both wholly silent
as to a receiver or the ability to separate a (previously
combined) signal back into its original parts. Short makes no
mention of a receiver or separation at all, and Fifield, at best,
discusses the removal of overlapping components. Myron is
silent about these claim elements too.
App. Br. 11 (panel's emphasis added).
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds:
9
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
[S]hort, discloses as shown in Fig. 13 the selecting the different
frequencies to shift into low and high frequency, 82 and 84 and
combining into the combiner, 86. Fifield teaches first ADC
means operating at a first sampling rate for digitizing the first
low IF signal, a second frequency down conversion means for
converting the unwanted signal to a second low IF signal having
a center frequency which may be different from that of the first
low IF signal, second ADC means operating at a second
sampling rate for digitizing the second low IF signal, the first and
second sampling rates being different with the lower rate being a
sub-multiple of, and being synchronized with, the higher rate,
frequency shifting means for shifting the frequency down
converted unwanted signal to a preselected position in the
frequency down converted wanted signal, sampling rate
adjusting means for adjusting the sample rate of the unwanted
signal to be the same as the sampling rate of the wanted signal,
and differencing means for obtaining the difference between the
digitized signals having the same sampling rates. Also, see, Fig.
1, using the different frequency characteristics, the different
frequency band can be achieved simply using filtering technique
having low pass or high pass characteristics. See, Fig. 1, of
Fifield the combined signal received is split using the filtering,
12 and from such signal, the low pass filtering is used, 26 and
28 to filter the combined signal into different frequency.
There/ ore, one can use the technique of the Fifield to separate
the combined signal of Short into the acoustic and non-
acoustic signal. Note that the Short's Fig. 13, has the signal
which is output from the transmitter including IFFF, 44,
amplifier, 88 and sound, 90 which is in receiver mode received
by the 15 and eventually goes through FFT, 80 and splitting,
so combined signal, 86 is again split, however this splitting of
frequency can be per/ ormed using Fifield technique of
filtering.
Ans. 10-11 ( emphasis added). In the Reply Brief, Appellants failed to
address the Examiner's findings in the Examiner's Answer. See Reply
Br. 1-3. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to persuasively establish that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20.
10
Appeal2018-006101
Application 14/321,475
We have considered Appellants' other arguments, and they are not
persuasive either. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3--4, 7-9, 11-
16, and 18-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(2) Claims 1, 3--4, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3--4, 7-9, 11-16, and
18-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11