Ex Parte Render et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

13453268 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

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.
13/453,268 04/23/2012 David S.J. RENDER 648.0259DIV 3111
93379 7590 01/29/2018
Setter Rnehe T T P
EXAMINER
14694 Orchard Parkway MONIKANG, GEORGE C
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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):
s arah @ setterroche. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
u spto @ setterroche .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID S.J. RENDER, MARC SAUNDERS, DENNIS POTHIER,
PHILLIP R. RUTTAN, and DAVID W. BOGGS
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,2681
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—8. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,268
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “secure data
communications,” and more particularly to “a method and system for
filtering or otherwise removing microphonic signal transmissions transduced
by an electronic device.” Spec. 12. Independent claim 1 is directed to a
method. App. Br. 10.
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added)
1. A method for providing microphonic isolation on a
transmission line, the transmission line having a first part and a
second part, the first part of the transmission line carrying a data
signal and a microphonic signal, the microphonic signal having
frequencies that include those in a range of substantially 20Hz
to substantially 20kHz, the method comprising:
receiving the data signal and the microphonic signal from
the first part of the transmission line;
substantially removing the microphonic signal received
from the first part of the transmission line using an isolation
apparatus having a filter enveloped at least in part by a sound
isolating compound',
outputting the data signal on the second part of the
transmission line when the isolation apparatus is powered; and
preventing the data signal from being output when the
isolation apparatus is not powered.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 2005/0048957 Al; published Mar. 3,
2005) (“Casey”), Kawamoto et al. (US 2005/0147092 Al; published July 7,
2005) (“Kawamoto”), and Levitsky et al. (US 2007/0154049 Al; published
July 5, 2007) (“Levitsky”). Ans. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,268
Claim 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Casey, Kawamoto, Levitsky, and Bruey (US 2008/0188965 Al;
published Aug. 7, 2008). Ans. 5.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Casey, Kawamoto, Levitsky, and Ashworth, Jr. (US
4,060,803; issued Nov. 29, 1977). Ans. 5.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “the microphonic signal having frequencies that
include those in a range of substantially 20Hz to substantially 20kHz.”
Appellants contend that claim 1 defines frequencies “in a range of
substantially 20Hz to 20kHz” for microphonic isolation, but Casey separates
POTS information known to have frequencies in a range of 0Hz to 4kHz.
App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that “Casey’s upper bound of 4kHz” is not
“substantially the 20kHz upper bound provided by claim 1.” Id. Appellants
argue that, while the claimed “substantially” defined frequency range allows
for “some variance from the recited values,” Casey’s range “makes up a
mere 20% of the claimed range” and is not within a close variance from the
claimed “substantially 20Hz to 20kHz.” Reply Br. 2.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claim requires a
frequency range “of substantially 20Hz to substantially 20kHz,” but that
otherwise the range is “not definite” and can broadly encompass “a range of
0-4kHz.” Ans. 6 (citing Casey Fig. 2A, H 31, 36); see Final Act. 3 (citing
Casey Fig. 2A, || 31, 36).
Appellants’ Specification describes microphonic signals having
“frequencies that include those in a range of substantially 20Hz to
3
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,268
substantially 20kHz.” Spec. 116. Appellants’ Specification further
describes an example of not propagating frequencies resulting from “audible
noises, i.e., speech or other audio signals in the 20Hz to 20kHz range.”
Spec. 128. Appellants do not provide any further limiting definition for
microphonic signals or signals to be isolated. Instead, the claimed
“microphonic signal having frequencies that include those in a range of
substantially 20Hz to substantially 20kHz,” in light of Appellants’
Specification, broadly encompasses signals with frequencies that include
frequencies within the 20Hz to 20kHz range. The claimed microphonic
signal does not further limit among frequencies that are included within the
range of 20Hz to 20kHz.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 6), Casey teaches a
“discrimination device 232” that includes “a high-pass and/or low-pass filter
for separating high-frequency (e.g., data) from low frequency (e.g., POTS)
information.” Casey 131 (emphasis added). As acknowledged by
Appellants, the Casey’s separated low frequency POTS information “include
frequencies ranging from roughly 0-4kHz.” App. Br. 6. In other words,
Casey filters out signals including frequencies ranging from 0-4kHz.
As such, consistent with the broad claim limitation for “the
microphonic signal having frequencies that include those in a range of
substantially 20Hz to substantially 20kHz f and in light of Appellants’
Specification, Casey’s separating out signals including frequencies ranging
from 0-4kHz teaches separating out signals with frequencies including those
in a range of 20Hz to 20kHz. For example, according to Casey, signals with
frequencies between 0Hz and 4kHz will be isolated, thereby isolating
microphonic signals with frequencies that include those in a range of
4
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,268
substantially 20Hz to substantially 20kHz (i.e., 20Hz to 4kHz). Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence that isolating signals with frequencies
including those in a range of substantially 20Hz to substantially 20kHz, as
required by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Casey’s
isolating signals with frequencies including those in a range of 0Hz to 4kHz.
Claim 1 further recites “substantially removing the microphonic
signal received from the first part of the transmission line using an isolation
apparatus having a filter enveloped at least in part by a sound isolating
compound.’ ''
Appellants contend that Levitsky teaches sound isolating materials,
but does not teach the sound isolating materials enveloping a filter as
claimed. App. Br. 7. Appellants argue that there is no reason Levitsky’s
sound isolating material would be use to envelop a filter for signals on a
transmission line. Reply Br. 2.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Levitsky teaches “the
concept of where a sound isolating material is attached to an earmuff to
reduce ambient noise.” Ans. 7 (citing Levitsky 1 6); see Final Act. 4 (citing
Levitsky 16). We further agree with the Examiner’s findings that it is
“obvious to modify the isolating/filter of Casey et al to include sound
isolating material as taught in Levitsky et al for the purpose of being able to
suppress surrounding ambient noises.” Final Act. 4.
Appellants’ Specification discloses a “sound isolating compound
enveloping at least a portion of the filter.” Spec. 116. An example provided
in Appellants’ Specification describes that “the device circuitry may be
insulated from surrounding audio waves through an isolation medium 128,
such as a sound potting compound.” Spec. 131. Appellants do not provide
5
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,268
any further limiting definitions regarding how the claimed “filter” is
“enveloped at least in part by a sound isolating compound.” Instead, the
claimed “filter enveloped at least in part by a sound isolating compound,” in
light of Appellants’ Specification, broadly encompasses the use of a sound
isolating compound to insulate the filter from surrounding audio waves.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7), Levitsky teaches
“sound isolating material. . . attachable to a microphone of and/or to an ear
cup of the headphone to reduce, to cancel and/or to dampen the noise and/or
ambient sounds.” Levitsky | 6. In other words, Levitsky teaches sound
isolating material that insulates (i.e., reduces, cancels, and/or dampens) the
attached device (i.e., headphone) from the surrounding audio waves (i.e.,
noise and/or ambient sounds that are reduced, canceled, and/or dampened).
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that the claimed
“filter enveloped at least in part by a sound isolating compound,”
encompassing a filter using sound isolating compound to insulate from audio
waves, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Casey’s filter combined with
Levitsky’s device being attached to sound isolating material to reduce
sounds.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejections of dependent claims 2-4 and
6—8, not separately argued. See App. Br. 7—8.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—4 and 6—8 are affirmed.
6
Appeal 2017-009211
Application 13/453,268
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
7