Ex Parte Goldman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201512319239 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STUART OWEN GOLDMAN and KARL F. RAUSCHER ____________ Appeal 2012-010293 Application 12/319,239 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Alcatel-Lucent as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-010293 Application 12/319,239 2 THE INVENTION The claims are directed to suppression of radio frequency interference in a Bluetooth wireless communications link. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for wirelessly transmitting audio data across a wireless link so as to enable a receiver to reduce Radio Frequency (RF) interference present in said wireless link comprising: transmitting a first sample comprising a data sample from a sequence of audio data samples across a single wireless link; and transmitting a second sample, in close temporal proximity to said transmission of said first sample across the single wireless link, wherein said second sample does not comprise audio data. The Examiner rejected claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mine (US 5,109,533, issued Apr. 28, 1992) and Linsky (US 2010/0093279 A1, pub. Apr. 15, 2010). (Ans. 3–13.)2 The Examiner rejected, in the alternative, claims 2, 9, 17, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mine, Linsky, and Virolainen (US 2003/0129956 A1, pub. July 10, 2003). (Ans. 13–14.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants’ Appeal Brief raises the following issues:3 2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 5, 12, 20, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. (Ans. 3.) 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 30, 2012), Reply Brief (filed June 19, Appeal 2012-010293 Application 12/319,239 3 First Issue: Whether Mine and Linsky teach or suggest the requirements of independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 23. (App. Br. 5–7.) Second Issue: Whether Mine and Linsky teach or suggest “temporarily disconnecting microphone input data” and “temporarily disconnecting speaker output data” as variously required by claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 19, 20, 26, and 27. (App. Br. 7–8.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3–14); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 15–22), and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. First Issue The Examiner concludes the combination of Mine and Linsky teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 23. (Ans. 3– 8.) In particular, the Examiner relies, inter alia, on the disclosure in Mine, “which shows . . . a sequence of data samples being received with noise superimposed together with a sequence of samples with no data, just noise.” (Ans. 4; Mine Figs. 2, 4, col. 3, l. 45–col. 6, l. 18.) The Examiner further 2012), and the Answer (mailed May 23, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants properly raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, or which are made in a conclusory fashion, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012). Appeal 2012-010293 Application 12/319,239 4 relies on the statement in Mine that “the invention may be applied to the field of various communications including radio communication.” (Ans. 3; Mine col. 11, ll. 33–35.) In addition, the Examiner relies on the fact that Linsky “teaches Bluetooth connection” and “to reduce interference.” (Ans. 4; Linsky ¶¶ 1, 39.) The Examiner thus concludes it would be obvious to combine Mine with Linsky to arrive at the claimed subject matter. (Ans. 4– 6.) Appellants argue on several grounds that it would not have been obvious to utilize the noise suppression taught by Mine in a Bluetooth connection between a headset and a cellular phone, as taught by Linsky. (App. Br. 6–7.) First, Appellants argue that there is “no teaching or suggestion that the Mine apparatus can be adapted for use in a wireless link.” (App. Br. 6.) However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding to the contrary, that Mine specifically discloses that “the invention may be applied to the field of various communications including radio communication.” (Ans. 3, 15; Mine col. 11, ll. 33–35.) Second, Appellants argue that Mine uses two sensors, whereas the Bluetooth approach of Linsky uses a single microphone, and that the components, circuits and operations of the references are significantly different. (App. Br. 6–7.) However, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have difficulty in adapting the noise suppression technique of Mine to the Bluetooth environment of Linsky, to arrive at the claimed subject matter. As the Examiner finds, the “principle of operation” of Mine is readily adapted to the use of a single microphone. (Ans. 16–17.) We note, as does the Examiner, that a microphone is a sensor that converts pressure of mechanical waves when someone speaks into an Appeal 2012-010293 Application 12/319,239 5 electrical signal, and thus, Mine’s disclosure of a pressure sensitive sensor encompasses use of a microphone. (Ans. 20; Mine col. 2, ll. 53–58.) We further agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Mine with Linsky given the common objective of both references to reduce noise interference in the context of electronic transmission of information. (Ans. 4–8, 17–18.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 23. Second Issue The Examiner concludes the combination of Mine and Linsky teaches or suggests “temporarily disconnecting microphone input data” and “temporarily disconnecting speaker output data” as variously required by claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 19, 20, 26, and 27. (Ans. 9–13). In particular, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Mine of circuitry that alternatively adds and subtracts the sensor output data, and which performs essentially the same operations as disclosed in Appellants’ Specification to achieve noise reduction. (Mine Figs. 2–4, col. 3, l. 45–col. 6, l. 18.) Appellants again argue that the measuring apparatus of Mine is “much different” from a Bluetooth application, and that it would not have been obvious to combine Mine with Linsky. We do not find these arguments persuasive, for the same reasons as discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 19, 20, 26, and 27. Appeal 2012-010293 Application 12/319,239 6 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection in light of Mine and Linsky of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, and 27. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection in light of Mine and Linsky of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28– 30, which depend from claims 1, 8, 16 or 23, and which are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 8.) In addition, for the same reasons, we sustain the alternative rejection of claims 2, 9, 17, and 24 in light of Mine, Linsky, and Virolainen, which depend from claims 1, 8, 16, or 23, and which are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 9.) DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2012). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation