Ex Parte Truon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

14304903 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/304,903 06/14/2014
11422 7590 11/29/2018
Polycom
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kwan K. Truon
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.
199-1055US 5087
EXAMINER
PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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):
acollins@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KW AN K. TRUON, PETER L. CHU, and STEVEN L. POTTS
Appeal 2018-005616
Application 14/304,903
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-24. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system, comprising:
a primary communication device capable of transmitting
a speaker's voice from the primary communication device to a
receiving communication device, wherein the primary
communication device includes a main microphone; and
a processor configured to:
receive a main audio input from the main
microphone;
Appeal2018-005616
Application 14/304,903
receive a reference audio input from each of a
plurality of reference microphones, with each reference
microphone in a different device, at least a plurality of
the plurality of reference microphones defining an
acoustic perimeter with respect to the primary
communication device, including the main microphone,
wherein the reference audio input includes far field noise;
and
generate a reduced-noise audio output having
suppressed far field noise based on a comparison of the
reference audio inputs to the main audio input,
wherein at least one of the plurality of reference
microphones is in a communication device.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20-24 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yermeche et al. (US
2013/0034243 Al; published Feb. 7, 2013) in view of Sweeney et al. (US
2009/0060216 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009) further in view of Visser et al.
(US 2010/0017205 Al; published Jan. 21, 2010).
Claims 4, 8, 9, 16, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Y ermeche et al. in view of Sweeney et
al. further in view of Visser et al., and further in view of Truong et al. (US
2014/0148224 Al; published May 29, 2014).
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because "Adaptive noise cancelling device
150 of Y ermeche is not a communication device." App. Br. 16 ( emphasis
omitted).
2
Appeal2018-005616
Application 14/304,903
2. Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because "Sweeney does not teach reference
microphones in communication devices." App. Br. 16-17 (emphasis
omitted).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which
the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-17); and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 17-24) in response to the
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, they are unpersuasive
because they are not directed to the Examiner's specific determination. See
Final Act. 2 et seq. Instead, Appellants attack references individually for
lacking a teaching for which the Examiner relied on a combination of
references to show. See App. Br. 8-18. It is well established that one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The effect of Appellants' argument is to raise and then
knock down a straw man rejection of claim 1 that was never made by the
Examiner, in that the Examiner did not rely solely on the one reference as
argued. In other words, Appellants argue against Examiner's findings that
were never made. This form of argument is inherently unpersuasive to show
3
Appeal2018-005616
Application 14/304,903
Examiner error. Our reviewing court requires that references must be read,
not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior
art as a whole. Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097.
The Examiner finds, and we agree,
it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was
made to modify the noise cancelling device 124 [in Sweeney]
which can be an integrated portion of the telephone 103 like a
cellular telephone, conference phone, or other telephone device
to have the microphones 126, 128, and 130 to be the reference
microphone of the adaptive noise cancelling device 150 of
Y ermeche.
Ans. 22-24 (citing Yermeche ,r [0027]; and Sweeney ,r,r [0017], [0021],
[0022], and [0034]) ( emphasis omitted).
For independent claims 13 and 20, Appellants rely on the arguments
presented for claim 1. App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded for the previously
discussed reasons. For dependent claims 3-12, 14--19, and 21-24,
Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 13. Id.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief but find
them unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner's responses. Consequently, we
conclude there is no reversible error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1,
and 3-24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-24.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4