Ex Parte Busby

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2019

15073867 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/073,867 03/18/2016
110239 7590 02/13/2019
Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd., Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Busby
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.
3065.0233CON 5717
EXAMINER
MARLEN, TAMMIE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2019 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER BUSBY1
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Cochlear Limited is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2)
and also is the Applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for generating stimulation signals in an
auditory prosthesis system comprising:
receiving a first sound signal at a first sound input
device;
receiving a second sound signal at a second sound input
device;
determining a first estimated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
of the first sound signal;
determining a second estimated SNR of the second sound
signal;
comparing the first SNR to the second SNR to select a
sound signal from one of the first sound signal or the second
sound signal that has the highest SNR; and
based on at least the selected sound signal, generating
stimulation signals capable of causing a hearing percept.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by
Griffin (US 2007/0016267 Al, pub. Jan. 18, 2007).
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by McDermott (US 2005/0107843 Al, pub. May 19, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20 Anticipated By Griffin
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a method and system respectively
that receive first and second sound signals, determine signal-to-noise ratios
(SNR) of each signal, and compare the SNRs to select a sound signal with
the highest SNR ( claim 1) or select a sound signal from the first or second
sound signal (claim 11). Appeal Br. 11, 13 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
The Examiner finds that Griffin discloses the method and system of
claims 1 and 11 by receiving sound signals at first and second sound input
devices (transducers 746, 756), determining an estimated SNR for each
sound signal, and comparing SNRs for each signal to select the signal with
the highest SNR. Final Act. 2-3, 5---6; Ans. 3--4. The Examiner reasons that
using a noise reference signal with a lower SNR than signals from a desired
direction results in comparing SNRs of first and second signals. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Griffin teaches to enhance the sensitivity of one
or more sensors in a sensor array to increase the SNR of sounds sensed from
a desired direction, but simply increasing the SNR for sounds sensed from a
desired direction is not the same as "determining" the SNR of a signal as
claimed. Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4--5. 2 Appellant also argues that Griffin
increases SNR for sounds from a desired direction while attenuating sounds
from other directions, but, Appellant argues, this process does not compare
SNRs of a first and second signal to select a sound signal with the highest
SNR. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues that Griffin's disclosure of the
use of a signal from a desired direction and a noise reference signal does not
necessarily or inherently disclose comparing the SNR of the two signals to
select a sound signal with the highest SNR. Reply Br. 5---6. In addition,
Appellant argues that Griffin's determination of signal amplitudes does not
teach or imply determination/calculation of SNRs for these sounds, but
instead teaches relative total levels of sounds regardless of the content of the
sounds such that any comparison also fails to teach the comparing of SNRs
of first and second signals. Id. at 6-7. We agree.
2 Citations to page numbers in the Reply Brief are to the unnumbered pages
in the order of their appearance.
3
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
Both parties agree that Griffin discloses a method of generating
stimulation signals by increasing the SNR of sound signals from a desired
direction (i.e., the directional sound signal) and eliminating or attenuating
sound received from other directions (i.e., the undesired sounds). Ans. 3--4;
Appeal Br. 6; see Griffin ,r,r 12, 13, 25, 36, 37, 105-107, Fig. 9. Griffin then
converts the enhanced signal with increased SNR from the desired direction
to a stimulation instruction signal. Id. ,r,r 25, 37.
A directional sound processor first determines the desired direction of
the signals to enhance based on the amplitudes of incident ambient sounds or
the direction of the signals. Id. ,r,r 25, 105. Then, signals from that desired
direction are enhanced by increasing their SNR. Id. ,r,r 25, 105.
The Examiner has not explained why Griffin's teaching to increase
the SNR of a signal in the desired direction necessarily requires or results in
determining a SNR of that signal as claimed. Ans. 3--4. Claim 1 requires
SNRs to be determined for a first and a second signal so that the determined
SNRs can be compared to select the sound signal with the highest SNR. The
Specification discloses this feature as processor 312 determining whether the
sound signal received on either the A side or the B side has the best signal-
to-noise ratio to be used as the basis for stimulation. Spec. ,r,r 31-33, Fig. 3.
Griffin does not determine SNRs of signals and then select a signal( s)
based on a comparison of the determined SNRs as claimed. Instead, Griffin
first determines the desired direction of the signals. Then, Griffin identifies
and selects signals from the desired direction. Griffin enhances the SNR of
signals identified as coming from the desired direction and cancels, filters,
removes, or otherwise attenuates signals received from other directions as
shown in Figure 9, which is reproduced below. Id. ,r,r 25, 37, 111.
4
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
FIG. 9
' ' 2l0' '---: _______ , _ .. ---··
2W c/0' _2S5'
Figure 9 illustrates how the system has maximum sensitivity to sounds
propagating toward the array along axis 920 from the desired OQ direction.
Other sounds received from the undesired direction, which is 180Q from the
desired direction, are treated as noise signals and eliminated to create a null
region in the beam pattern. Id. ,r,r 105-107. A directional sound processor
284/884 combines sounds propagating along or near axis 920 from the OQ
direction into a directional sound signal to provide a stimulation instruction
signal while eliminating the noise signals. Id. ,r,r 37, 96, 107.
The Examiner is correct that Griffin captures a noise reference signal
with a coil sensor. Ans. 4. However, Griffin does not calculate a SNR of
the noise signal. Nor does Griffin compare a SNR of the noise signal to
SNRs of other signals as claimed. Instead, the low amplitude noise signals
received by the coil sensor are used as a noise reference signal for noise
canceling adaptive filtering. Griffin ,r 111.
5
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
The desired sound is not selected by comparing the SNR of a sound
signal to the SNR of a noise reference signal. Instead, sound signals from a
desired direction are enhanced and used for stimulation, while the noise
reference signal, which captures noise signals from an undesired direction, is
used to cancel, filter, remove, or attenuate sounds received from directions
other than the desired direction. Id. ,r,r 25, 36, 37, 105-107, 111, Fig. 9.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11 or their
respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 Anticipated By McDermott
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 as a group. Appeal Br.
7-9. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2, 3, 7-13, and 17-20
standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that McDermott receives a first
sound signal at a first input device (microphone 50) and at a second input
device (microphone 60). Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that McDermott
determines (estimates) a SNR of each sound signal by "comparing the total
power at the output of the matching fundamental frequency template with
the total power of those components of the signal that do not coincide with
any of the filters in the matching fundamental frequency template." Ans. 6-
7 ( quoting McDermott ,r 67); Final Act. 8 ( citing McDermott ,r,r 67, 68).
The Examiner also finds that McDermott compares the SNRs of each signal
to select the first or second sound signal with the highest SNR and then uses
the signal with the highest SNR to modify the stimulation pulses on the side
that is determined to have the larger output signal/SNR because this side is
where the dominant sound source is located. Final Act. 8, 13; Ans. 7.
6
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
Appellant argues that McDermott teaches a technique for determining
the SNR by comparing two different power measurements and uses the SNR
to evaluate the reliability of the previously estimated fundamental frequency
but McDermott does not disclose "comparing the first SNR to the second
SNR to select a sound signal from one of the first sound signal or the second
sound signal that has the highest SNR." Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 9-11.
The Examiner has the better position. McDermott teaches that signals
from each microphone 50, 60 of the bilateral auditory prosthesis of Figure 5
pass through respective banks of spectral template filters 52, 62 to identify
the fundamental frequency of the electrical signal according to the technique
described for the single auditory prosthesis of Figure 1. McDermott ,r,r 87,
88. That technique involves passing a signal from microphone 2 through a
fundamental frequency template of filters 14 that define an ordered list of
frequencies to identify the template that passes the maximum power of the
signal. Id. ,r,r 50-53, 56-59, Fig. 2. The frequency of the template passing
the maximum power compared to the other templates provides an estimate
of the fundamental frequency. Id. ,r,r 56, 57, 59. A SNR is then calculated
for that signal by comparing the total power at the output of the matching
fundamental frequency template with the total power of other components of
the signal that do not coincide with the filters of the matching fundamental
frequency template. Id. ff 67, 68. If the SNR exceeds a predetermined
threshold, the signal is considered to be reliable enough to be used by pulse
adjustment device to modify the stimulation pulses of pulse generator 13 to
generate improved stimulation signals. Id. ,r,r 68-72. McDermott uses this
same process to identify the fundamental frequency and estimate its SNR for
sound signals captured at each device of a bilateral prosthesis. Id. ,r,r 87, 88.
7
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
However, McDermott also shares the fundamental frequencies of the
signals detected by each microphone 50, 60 of a bilateral prosthesis between
the two devices. Id. ,r 89. As a result, each pulse adjustment device 54, 64
determines the filter template that passes the maximum power compared to
the other templates (to identify the fundamental frequency and its SNR) and
then compares the power levels of each auditory device to determine which
device passes the greater power. Id. ,r,r 90, 91. Modifications of stimulation
pulses occur only in the device with the matching template that passes the
maximum power so "modification of the stimulation pulses need only occur
on the side determined to have the larger output signal, this being the side
where the dominant sound source is located." Id. ,r 91.
Because McDermott teaches that the SNR of a signal is determined by
comparing the power output of the fundamental frequency of that signal to
power levels of other components of the signal, as Appellant acknowledges,
the Examiner had a sound basis for finding that McDermott's comparison of
the power output by each auditory device also compares the SNRs of each
device. Ans. 7. The auditory device that produces the higher power output
also has the higher SNR, as McDermott teaches. See id. ,r,r 67, 68. A skilled
artisan would understand that McDermott's teaching to use the signal with
the higher power output as the stimulation signal also selects the signal with
the higher SNR. This is so because McDermott teaches that sound signals
with higher power outputs have higher SNRs, and McDermott filters sounds
to identify the fundamental frequency of a sound that produces the highest
power output and therefore has the highest SNR of the filtered sounds. Id.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 7-13, and
17-20, which stand therewith.
8
Appeal2018-004705
Application 15/073,867
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-20 as anticipated by Griffin.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 as anticipated
by McDermott.
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-IN-PART
9