Ex Parte Aschoff et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

10669075 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte STEFAN ASCHOFF, JORG BINDNER, VOLKER RIECKEN,
and ROLAND WEIDNER
____________________

Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: June 29, 20091
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

2
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2002).
We affirm.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an interface device
for audiological devices. More particularly, the invention relates to a
method for exchanging data for audiological devices. (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. An interface device for audiological devices between a
plurality of audiological applications and at least one audiological
data administration system, comprising:

an audiological application access device to which the plurality
of audiological applications for controlling audiological
hardware components can be connected for uniform data
exchange,

an audiological data administration connection device to which
at least one audiological data administration system can
be connected, and

a converter device, that closes a connection between the
audiological application access device and the
audiological data administration connection device, the
converter device being configured to perform at least one
of: a) converting respectively specific audiological
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

3
application data acquired by the audiological application
access device in a predeterminable databank format for
the plurality of audiological applications, and b)
converting databank audiological data acquired from the
audiological data administration connection device into
one or more respectively specific application formats for
the plurality of audiological applications.

C. REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Eaton US 2005/0283263 A1 Dec. 22, 2005

Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over the
teachings of Eaton.

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Eaton
discloses “a converter device” configured to perform at least one of
“converting respectively specific audiological application data… in a
predeterminable databank format for the plurality of audiological
applications” and “converting databank audiological data… into one or more
respectively specific application formats for the plurality of audiological
applicatons” (Claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

4
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Eaton
1. Eaton relates to fitting, programming, or upgrading hearing aid
systems (p. 1, ¶ [0002]).
2. Distributed applications are adapted to move from the server 116 to
the device 106 to execute on the device 106 (p. 3, ¶ [0041]; Fig. 1).
3. Once a distributed application is executed on the device 106, the
device 106 may interact with the hearing aid system 102 through the
user interface provided by the distributed system (id.).
4. During the fitting process, a piece of software may be executed on the
mobile device 606 to interact with the patient wearing the hearing aid
system 602B, and the aural response from the patient is either
automatically sent back to the testing software by the hearing aid
system 602B or is recorded manually into the testing software through
the mobile device 606 (p. 4, ¶ [0053]; Fig. 6).
5. Such aural responses are formatted to form an audiogram before
sending the information to the programming fitting server (id.).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

5
Pharm.Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) “In other words, if granting
patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude
the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated,
regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id.
(citations omitted).
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). "[T]he PTO gives
claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

V. ANALYSIS
Appellants provide the same arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 1-16. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as being
representative of the cited claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
In the Appeal Brief, although Appellants admit that “[t]he system of
Eaton talks about different audiological applications,” Appellants argue that
Eaton “refers to [the different audiological applications] in different
embodiments” (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that “[t]he present
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

6
converter, as claimed in the independent claims, is thus substantially more
flexible than that as taught by Eaton, since it can convert into several
formats within one embodiment” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that:
Eaton teaches a plurality of audiological applications from a data
administration system [server 116] distributed/downloaded and
dynamically plug into an interface device [device 106] for adapting to
interact [paragraphs 0040, 0041] with audiological devices [hearing
aid system 102]: inter alia, a test and measuring application
[paragraphs 0010, 0045, 0053] and a programming application
[paragraphs 0010, 0043, 0059] using a patient identification or aural
response.

(Ans. 7).
Thus, we determine on this Appeal whether Eaton discloses “a
converter device” configured to perform at least one of “converting
respectively specific audiological application data… in a predeterminable
databank format for the plurality of audiological applications” and
“converting databank audiological data… into one or more respectively
specific application formats for the plurality of audiological applicatons”
(Claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Appellants’ contention that Appellants’ converter is substantially
more flexible than that of Eaton “since it can convert into several formats
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

7
within one embodiment” is not commensurate with the language of claim 1.
That is, contrary to Appellants’ contention, claim 1 does not recite any “into
several formats” or “within one embodiment” limitation. In fact, claim 1
merely recites converting “in a predeterminable databank format for the
plurality of audiological applications” or “into one or more respectively
specific application formats for the plurality of audiological applications”
(emphasis added). Accordingly, we will not read the conversion as “into
several formats” or “within one embodiment,” as Appellants contend.
As the Examiner finds, “Eaton teaches a plurality of audiological
applications from a data administration system” (Ans. 7). In particular,
Eaton relates to fitting, programming, or upgrading hearing aid systems (FF
1). In fact, even Appellants admit that “[t]he system of Eaton talks about
different audiological applications” (App. Br. 8). An artisan would have
understood that Eaton discloses a system “for a plurality of audiological
applications” as required by claim 1.
Furthermore, Eaton discloses a device which closes connection
between a short range network and a long range network (FF 2-3), wherein
aural responses from the patient are received (FF 4) and formatted to form
an audiogram (FF 5). An artisan would have understood such device to be a
converter, wherein the responses are converted in “a predeterminable
databank format” or into “one or more respectively specific application
formats” (emphasis added), as required by claim 1. In fact, Appellants even
admit that “Eaton is adapted to convert data (aural responses), into one
predetermined audiogram format” (App. Br. 8, emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

8
Accordingly, we find that Eaton’s device converts the aural responses in a or
one format, wherein the format is for the plurality of audiological
applications disclosed in Eaton.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Eaton discloses “a converter
device” configured to perform at least one of “converting respectively
specific audiological application data… in a predeterminable databank
format for the plurality of audiological applications” and “converting
databank audiological data… into one or more respectively specific
application formats for the plurality of audiological applicatons” (Claim 1,
emphasis added).
Accordingly, we conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and claims 2-16 falling
with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1-16 are anticipated by the teachings of Eaton.
(2) Claims 1-16 are not patentable.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Appeal 2009-001738
Application 10/669,075

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

PEB

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
6600 SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO IL 60606-6473