SIVANTOS PTE. LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

2019003884 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/613,325 06/05/2017 ULRICH GIESE FDST-2014P18174C 1076
24131 7590 08/03/2020
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SUNITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH GIESE, SEBASTIAN PAPE,
MARKO LUGGER, and HOMAYOUN KAMKAR PARSI
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–11, and 13. Claims 1–13 are

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 5, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed May 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed November
20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 14, 2019
(“Ans.”).

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sivantos Pte.
Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

2
pending. Claims 7 and 12 and objected to. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
A hearing was held on June 18, 2020, and a transcript has been made
of record.
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hearing aid device and a method for
operating it, the device having an acousto-electrical transducer, a signal
processing device, an electro-acoustic transducer and a recognition device
for rapidly detecting a wearer’s own voice. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in
italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A hearing aid device, comprising:
an acousto-electrical transducer configured to receive an
audio signal and to convert the audio signal into an electrical
audio signal;
a signal processing unit connected to said first acousto-
electrical transducer, said signal processing unit being
configured to process the electrical audio signal and to output a
processed electrical audio signal;
a recognition unit for quickly recognizing a hearing aid
wearer’s own voice, said recognition unit, upon recognizing the
wearer’s own voice, operating said signal processing unit with a
modified signal processing parameter that is modified to improve
a sound perception of the wearer’s own voice;
said signal processing unit processing the electrical audio
signal differently in two parallel signal processing paths to
generate an output signal of a first signal processing path and
an output signal of a second signal processing path and mixing
the output signal of the first signal processing path and the
output signal of the second signal processing path in dependence
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

3
on recognizing the wearer’s own voice to form the processed
electrical audio signal; and
an electro-acoustic transducer connected to said signal
processing unit and configured to convert the processed electrical
audio signal into an acoustic signal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ludvigsen US 7,031,484 B2 Apr. 18, 2006
Hamacher US 7,853,031 B2 Dec. 14, 2010
Lugger US 2013/0148829 A1 June 13, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as anticipated by Lugger. Final Act. 2–11.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Lugger and Hamacher. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lugger and Ludvigsen. Final Act. 13–
14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

4
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–14) and (2) the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–5) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Because Appellant argues all claims are patentable because Lugger
does not anticipate claim 1 (see Appeal. Br. 4–8)—and Hamacher and
Ludvigsen fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Lugger—our analysis of
claim 1 (i.e., whether Lugger is deficient as alleged) is dispositive.
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
said signal processing unit processing the electrical audio signal
differently in two parallel signal processing paths to generate an
output signal of a first signal processing path and an output signal
of a second signal processing path and mixing the output signal
of the first signal processing path and the output signal of the
second signal processing path in dependence on recognizing the
wearer’s own voice to form the processed electrical audio signal.
The Examiner finds Lugger discloses this limitation with reference to
Figure 2 and at least paragraphs 37–40. Final Act. 3–4. Figure 2 is
reproduced below:

Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of a hearing apparatus.
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

5
Appellant argues that “Lugger does not disclose a signal processor
having two signal processing paths in parallel (i.e., working at the same
time) [and] does not disclose that the signal processor is configured to mix
signals of the processing paths in dependence on the recognition of the
wearer’s own voice.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Referring to Figure 2 above, Lugger discloses that signals are
processed by processing facility 20, and that “analysis facilities 32 to 38
generate output signals in dependence on the wanted signal of the
microphone facility 18, which contain data and/or speech activity of the
hearing device wearer, i.e. speech activity data 40, 42, 44, 46.” Lugger
¶¶ 30, 36. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the claimed
“signal processing unit processing [an] electrical audio signal differently in
two parallel signal processing paths” reads on “processing facility 20,” the
output paths of the “analysis facilities 32 to 38” defining at least first and
second signal processing paths in which signals are processed differently.
Signals from these paths are then “mix[ed] . . . in dependence on recognizing
the wearer’s own voice to form the processed electrical audio signal.” See
Lugger ¶ 42. This is consistent with the Examiner’s unrebutted analysis.
See Ans. 4–5.3
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments to the contrary do not persuade
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–8. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2–6, 8–10, and 13,

3 Appellant did not file a Reply Brief responsive to the Examiner’s
explanation in the Examiner’s Answer and Appellant’s Appeal Brief does
not persuasively rebut these findings.
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

6
which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 4–
8.
DECISION SUMMARY
In sum:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 8–
11, 13
102 Lugger 1, 2, 6, 8–
11, 13

3 103 Lugger, Hamacher 3
4, 5 103 Lugger, Ludvigsen 4, 5
Overall
Outcome:
1–6, 8–11,
13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED