Ex Parte Wilson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

11998868 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111998,868 11130/2007
15757 7590 03/16/2016
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Wilson
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.
82594581 6986
EXAMINER
TRAN,PABLON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WILSON
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, 20-24, and 26. Claims 5, 10, 17,
19, and 25 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A wireless phone, comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to facilitate wireless transfer
of signals containing audio information, the wireless transceiver
configured to receive signals containing audio information;
a processing circuit coupled with the wireless transceiver to
receive audio data based on the audio signals received by the
wireless transceiver and provide output audio signals based on the
audio data; and
a plurality of coils formed in a multilayer circuit carrying
element, the coils to receive a signal based on the output audio
signals from the processing circuit and to at least provide an output
signal receivable by a hearing aid that is not intelligible by a
human ear, and
at least two of the plurality of coils are formed in separate
layers of the circuit carrying element and at least two of the
plurality of coils are on a common layer.
Porrazzo
Bosch
Greuet
Hawker
Prior Art
us 6,137,891
US 2004/0116151 Al
US 7,418,106 B2
US 7 ,551,942 B2
2
Oct. 24, 2000
June 17, 2004
Aug.26,2008
June 23, 2009
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20-24, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hawker and Porrazzo.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hawker and Bosch.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hawker and Greuet.
ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, and 26
Claim 1 recites "a plurality of coils formed in a multilayer circuit
carrying element ... , and at least two of the plurality of coils are formed in
separate layers of the circuit carrying element and at least two of the
plurality of coils are on a common layer." Appellants contend Porrazzo does
not teach that at least two of the plurality of coils are formed in separate
layers of the circuit carrying element. Br. 20, 21. Appellants' contention is
inconsistent with Figure 6A and column 6, lines 16-21 of Porrazzo, which
teach two different electrical conductor layers 26 for voice coils. See Ans. 3.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2--4, 7, 9, 12,
16, 18, and 26 which fall with claim 1.
Section 103 rejection of claims 6 and 11
Appellants challenge the Examiner's Official Notice that the plurality
of coils "are at least partially overlapping" as recited in claim 6, and the
plurality of coils "are at least one of a rounded shape and a polygonal shape"
3
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
as recited in claim 11. Br. 21. The Examiner provides evidence showing the
limitations of claims 6 and 11 were known in the art. Ans. 4, 5. Appellants
do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's
finding.
We sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claim 20
Appellants contend Porrazzo does not teach "a coil system formed on
a circuit board, the coil system comprising at least three coils formed in
separate layers of the circuit board and at least two coils on a common layer"
as recited in claim 20 because Porrazzo does not teach coils formed in
separate layers of a coil system on a circuit board. Br. 23, 24. Appellants'
contention is inconsistent with Figure 6A and column 6 of Porrazzo as
discussed in our analysis of claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claims 8 and 21-24
Appellants contend Porrazzo does not teach "coils on at least five
layers of the circuit carrying element" as recited in claim 8 (Br. 21) and "the
multiple coils formed in at least five different layers of the plurality of
layers" as recited in claim 21 (Br. 25), and conclude "the multiple coils
formed in at least five different layers of the plurality of layers" is not
common knowledge in the prior art. Br. 25. The Examiner finds forming
multiple coils in multiple layers taught by Porrazzo, and concludes choosing
the number of layers to be five involves routine skill in the art. Ans. 5.
4
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's finding that
Porrazzo teaches forming multiple coils in multiple layers, nor have
Appellants provided persuasive evidence or argument to show forming
multiple coils in at least five different layers was beyond the level of skill of
a person able to form multiple coils on multiple layers as taught by Porrazzo.
See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 22-
24 which fall with claim 21.
Section 103 rejection of claim 13
Appellants contend claim 13, which depends from claims 1 and 12,
should have been rejected as unpatentable over Hawker, Porrazzo, and
Bosch. Br. 27. Appellants then contend claim 13 is patentable over the
combination of Hawker, Porrazzo, and Bosch because the combination does
not teach each and every limitation of claim 1 (id.), which we find
unpersuasive as discussed in our analysis of claim 1.
Even ifthe Examiner erred in not including Porrazzo in the rejection
of claim 13, Appellants still have presented arguments that claim 13 is
patentable over the combination of Hawker, Porrazzo, and Bosch. We view
this error as harmless typographical error. We sustain the rejection of claim
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hawker, Porrazzo, and
Bosch, for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Action. See Final
Act. 6.
5
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
Section 103 rejection of claims 14 and 15
Appellants contend claims 14 and 15, which depend indirectly and
directly from claim 1, respectively, should have been rejected as
unpatentable over Hawker, Porrazzo, and Greuet. Br. 27. Appellants then
contend claims 14 and 15 are patentable over the combination of Hawker,
Porrazzo, and Greuet because the combination does not teach each and every
limitation of claim 1 (Br. 27, 28), which we find unpersuasive as discussed
in our analysis of claim 1.
Even if the Examiner erred in not including Porrazzo in the rejection
of claims 14 and 15, Appellants still have presented arguments that claims
14 and 15 are patentable over the combination of Hawker, Porrazzo, and
Greuet. We view this error as harmless typographical error. We sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hawker, Porrazzo, and Greuet, for the reasons given by the Examiner in the
Final Action. See Final Act. 6-7.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11, 12-16, 18, 20-24,
and 26 are affirmed.
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
6
Appeal2014-007137
Application 11/998,868
7