COCHLEAR LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2020

15003106 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
15/003,106 01/21/2016 Oliver John Ridler CID02275USCO1/32USU1 7877
106936 7590 07/14/2020
Merchant & Gould Cochlear
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, SEAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2020 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):
USPTO106936@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OLIVER JOHN RIDLER and JAMES VANDYKE
____________________

Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,1061
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–9.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Cochlear Limited.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 10–20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 21, 2016,
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 30, 2018, Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed August 27, 2018, Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
December 17, 2018, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to auditory prostheses including a “cable for
power and data transmission.” Title (capitalization altered); Abstract. The
cable adapted to be connected to a discrete power source and to the auditory
prosthesis’ components. Id.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphases, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a first wearable component;
a second wearable component adapted to be worn discrete
from the first wearable component; and
a cable comprising:
a power connector adapted to be connected to a
discrete power source;
a first connector adapted to be connected to the first
wearable component;
a second connector adapted to be connected to the
second wearable component; and
a wire operatively connected to the first connector,
the second connector, and the power source connector.

Appeal Br. 20–22 (Claims App.) (emphases added).

REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
Claims 1–3 and 5–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Walsh et al. (US 2012/0041517 A1, published Feb. 16, 2012) (“Walsh”) and
Meskens et al. (US 2014/0025138 A1, published Jan. 23, 2014) (“Meskens
’138”). Final Act. 2–7.
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

3
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Walsh,
Meskens ’138, and Meskens et al. (US 2008/0304686 A1, published Dec.
11, 2008) (“Meskens ’686”). Final Act. 7–8.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1–3 and 6–9
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends Walsh and
Meskens ’138 do not teach or suggest the claimed “cable comprising . . . a
wire operatively connected to the first connector, the second connector, and
the power source connector.” Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2–5.4 In
particular, Appellant argues “[n]either the Office Action nor the Answer
made . . . a showing” of “the specifically-claimed individual wire,” and
“none of the applied references describes a single wire operatively
connecting three connectors” as claimed. Reply Br. 3, 5; see also Appeal
Br. 12–13. For example, Appellant argues Walsh merely discloses a cable
including multiple wires, but “Walsh does not appear to describe a cable
comprising a wire operatively connected to all three connectors in the
manner claimed.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphases added) (citing Walsh ¶¶ 108,
133); Reply Br. 3–4. We do not agree.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Walsh’s Figure 25 teaches or
at least suggests a cable comprising a wire operatively connected to a first
connector, a second connector, and a power source connector, as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Walsh Fig. 25 (showing wire or cable 976

4 Appellant’s Reply Brief does not have numbered pages. We count the
pages starting from the first page.
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

4
connected to headpiece 108, BTE (behind-the-ear) unit 100, and case 900));
Ans. 9.
More particularly, paragraph 133 of Walsh describes element 976 of
Figure 25 as follows:
Where the case 900 communicates (information or power) with
any external devices including BTE unit 100, BTE unit 100-1,
headpiece 108, CPI unit 990, and clinician’s fitting station 992
using a wire or cable 976 to connect the case 900 to each
respective device, the wire or cable 976 may be a single cable
or may be bifurcated (to connect two or more devices to the
case 900 at the same time). The cable 976 may be manually
wrapped and placed within a cable receptacle 972 within the
housing of the case 900. The cable receptacle 972 may include
a spring-loaded reel or equivalent structure 974 capable of
winding or retracting the cable 976 into the housing of the case
900 when the cable 976 is not in use.

See Walsh ¶ 133 (emphases added). Thus, Walsh teaches that element 976
may be a wire, the wire connecting case 900 to headpiece 108 (a first
wearable component) and BTE unit 100 (a second wearable component) as
shown in Figure 25. See Walsh ¶ 133, FIG. 25. Walsh therefore teaches or
at least suggests a wire operatively connected to a first connector (associated
with the first wearable component) and to a second connector (associated
with the second wearable component), as recited in claim 1. See Walsh
¶¶ 72 (describing BTE unit 100 including “a power connector 116” and “a
headpiece port 106 that allows the BTE unit to be connected to a headpiece
108”), 133, FIG. 1 (illustrating connectors for connecting to headpiece 108
and BTE 100) and Fig. 25.
In addition, Walsh’s paragraph 133 teaches that “case 900
communicates . . . power” to “external devices including BTE unit 100 . . .
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

5
headpiece 108 . . . using a wire or cable 976 to connect the case 900 to each
respective device,” thereby teaching, or at least suggesting, that wire 976 is
also operatively connected to a power source connector associated with the
power-providing case 900. See Walsh ¶ 133 (emphases added); see also
Walsh ¶ 120 (describing “Speech processor cases [that] . . . may also include
communications electronics capable of wirelessly or directly (through wire
. . .) connecting the BTE unit 100 with external devices in addition to the
aforementioned headpieces,” whereby “the communication electronics may
facilitate the transfer of information and/or power to and from the case and
the external devices” (emphasis added)).
We additionally note, Appellant’s argument about Walsh’s wire 976
does not explain with particularity why “wire or cable 976 . . . [does not]
appear to disclose the claimed recitation.” See Appeal Br. 13 (“while Walsh
describes a single cable or a bifurcation connecting two or more devices to
the case, Walsh does not appear to describe a cable comprising a wire
operatively connected to all three connectors in the manner claimed.”).
For these reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, and 6–9 for
which no separate arguments for patentability are presented. Appeal Br. 14.

Rejection of Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, the Examiner finds Meskens ’138 teaches “a
wire bundle comprising a power wire and a data wire,” takes Official Notice
that “it is well known in the cable art to have bundles connected [to] several
elements . . . operatively,” and concludes
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

6
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to modify the wire bundle of Walsh and Meskens [’138]
to have a power wire operatively connected to the first connector,
the second connector, and the power connector; and a data wire
operatively connected to the first connector and the second
connector [as recited in claim 5] in order to enable the apparatus
to dually receive/transfer power and data easily.

Final Act. 4–5 (citing Meskens ’138 FIGS. 9–10).
Appellant argues “the rejection erroneously relied on official notice,
without documentary evidence, that the specifically-recited wire bundle is
within the specific knowledge of the prior art.” Appeal Br. 15–16.
Appellant further argues “the facts asserted by the Office Action are not well
known, and the technical line of reasoning underlying the official notice is
fatally flawed.” Id. at 15. In particular, Appellant asserts “[w]hether a
‘bundle’ for connecting elements is generally known, that would not make
obvious the specifically-claimed bundle” including “a data wire operatively
connected to the first and second connectors, as well as a power wire
operatively connected to all three of: the first connector, the second
connector, and the power connector.” Id. at 17–18.
In the Answer, the Examiner provides documentary evidence to
demonstrate that a “wire bundle compris[ing] individual data wires and
power wires which are connected to the same corresponding first and second
connectors at each end of the wire bundle” is well known in the art. Ans. 11.
The Examiner’s documentary evidence includes the Universal Serial Bus
Specification Revision 2.0. Id. (citing Universal Serial Bus Specification
Revision 2.0 86–87, 89, 120). The Examiner further cites to cables
connecting to headpiece units 106 and 906 and processing unit 1002 in
Meskens ’138. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant then argues that the
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

7
Answer’s use of Official Notice to reject claim 5 is not proper because “the
Answer merely contended that the operative connection of a power wire
with ‘first and second connectors’ was disclosed rather than all three
claimed connectors.” Reply Br. 6–7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the
Examiner that a wire bundle comprising a power wire and a data wire, as
recited in claim 5, would have been obvious to those skilled in the art.
Firstly, as noted by the Examiner, a wire bundle comprising a data
wire and a power wire—each operatively connected to the same connectors
at the wire bundle’s ends—is common knowledge in the art of electrical
interfaces. See Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 86–87
(describing a USB cable that “consists of four conductors, two power
conductors, and two signal conductors”), 89, 120; Meskens ’138 ¶¶ 29 (a
processing unit sends an input signal to a headpiece unit “via the cable 104
that includes the stimulation signal and a primary power signal,” using a
standardized data protocol such as “a Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) data
protocol, a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (‘UART’)
protocol, a Universal Synchronous/ Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter
(‘USART’) protocol . . . suitable for simultaneously transmitting data and
power”), 34 (“the wiring of the cable 104 conforms to a standardized
electrical interface, such as a USB serial interface, an RS-232 electrical
serial interface, or any other standardized electrical interface suitable for
simultaneously transferring data and power,” with one example of “cable
104 includ[ing] at least a pair of wires for sending and receiving data . . . , a
third wire for transferring a five volt power signal from the processing unit
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

8
102 to the headpiece unit 106, and a fourth wire that is grounded”), FIGS.
1A, 9–10.
Secondly, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are
persuaded that the combination of Walsh and Meskens ’138 teaches a cable
comprising a power wire operatively connected to three connectors (a first
connector, a second connector, and a power connector). Thus, we remain
unpersuaded by Appellant’s Reply Brief arguments (see Reply Br. 6–7). We
also agree with the Examiner’s reasoned explanation that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the cable of Walsh and Meskens ’138
“to have . . . [in addition to a power wire connected to three connectors] a
data wire operatively connected to the first connector and the second
connector in order to enable the apparatus to dually receive/transfer power
and data easily.” Final Act. 5.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5.

Rejection of Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the discrete power
source comprises at least one of a battery, a building power supply, and an
energy scavenging unit” and “wherein the cable further comprises a low pass
filter configured to prevent transmission of data to the power connector over
the wire.”
With respect to claim 4, the Examiner finds Meskens ’686 teaches a
low-pass filter 140 that ensures separation of radiated RF signals transferred
over a jack/wire, showing that “it is well known in the art to have . . . [a]
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

9
cable further compris[ing] a low pass filter configured to prevent
transmission of data to the power connector over the wire.” Final Act. 8
(citing Meskens ’686 ¶ 42).
Appellant argues “the ‘low-pass filter 140’ [of Meskens ’686] does
not appear to be configured to prevent transmission of data to a power
connector over a wire”; instead, “filter 140 blocks high RF band signals and
prevents them from propagating to the transceiver 150” which is “an audio
or baseband transmitter and/or receiver,” not a power connector adapted to
be connected to a discrete power source as claimed. Appeal Br. 14 (citing
Meskens ’686 ¶ 39).
The Examiner responds that Meskens ’686 has been relied upon to
solve an issue of “interference between signals” in the wire bundle of Walsh
and Meskens ’138, and “a person having ordinary skill in the art would
understand that utilizing a low-pass filter in the manner described in the
rejection . . . would be a well-known solution for such a problem as
disclosed in Meskens[]’686.” Ans. 11. Appellant, in turn, argues:
the Answer provided no showing that the problems of
transmission of high RF band signals to an audio/baseband
transceiver described in Meskens ’686 would motivate one to
arrive at the claimed invention relating to the different situation
of preventing transmission of data to a power connection over a
wire. And even if the low-pass filter were added to Walsh and
Meskens ’138, there would still be no indication on the record
that such a filter would be configured “to prevent transmission
of data to [a] power connector” as claimed.

Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because claim 4 does not
specify how the claimed “preventing transmission of data to a power
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

10
connection over a wire” identifies a “different situation” from the problem
and solution addressed by the low-pass filter of Meskens ’686. See Reply
Br. 6. For example, claim 4 does not specify what the claimed “data” is, or
what kind of “data” is to be prevented from being transmitted to the power
connector.5
As such, claim 4 broadly includes preventing transmission of any kind
of data—such as, e.g., any kind of spurious signals. The disclosure of
Meskens ’686 sufficiently teaches that it was known to a skilled artisan to
use low-pass filters to prevent crosstalk and transmission of at least some
kinds of data/spurious signals downstream. Ans. 11. For example, Meskens
’686 teaches that a low-pass filter prevents transmission of “radiated [high]
RF signals [that] may be captured by the receptacles 173 and may interfere
with the operation of the baseband transceiver 150” located downstream
from an antenna. See Meskens ’686 ¶ 42, Fig. 3B. Thus, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is “no indication on the
record that such a [low-pass] filter would be configured ‘to prevent
transmission of data to [a] power connector’ as claimed.” See Reply Br. 6.

5 Appellant’s Specification describes examples in which power (for
changing a hearing unit’s battery) and auditory data signals are exchanged at
the same time between a BTE unit and an external portion of an auditory
prosthesis, “allow[ing] for hearing during charging operations” and
“allowing a recipient to charge the battery of her device ‘on the go.’” (See
Spec. ¶¶ 31–32, 34–35 (explaining that high pass and low pass filters are
used to separate power signals (e.g., DC power) from auditory data signals
when “a high frequency sinusoid present on the two wires is delivered to the
coil of the external portion” and “the wires of the wire bundle 408 are used
for the transmission of power from power connector 402”).) Claim 4,
however, does not specify any of these details, and does not provide any
specifics regarding the “data” that is to be prevented from transmitting to the
power connector.
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

11
Rather, Meskens ’686 provides explicit indications for the use of a low pass
filter to block some data that is commensurate with claim 4’s broadly
claimed “data.” We agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would
have recognized the usability of low pass filters, and would have foreseen
the benefit of adding a low pass filter on a cable to prevent potential
transmission of unwanted/spurious data downstream (e.g., downstream of a
power connector to a discrete power source). Ans. 11; Final Act. 8. Adding
a low pass filter to a cable would have been obvious to those skilled in the
art as a use of a known technique to improve signals on the cable. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[A] combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
art of record teaches or makes obvious the cable recited in claim 4. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.

DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
AFFIRMED.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–9 103 Walsh,
Meskens ’138
1–3, 5–9
4 103 Walsh,
Meskens ’138,
Meskens ’686
4
Appeal 2019-002691
Application 15/003,106

12
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–9

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).

AFFIRMED