Ex Parte Wu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

11354214 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111354,214 02/14/2006
26096 7590 06/30/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SeanF. Wu
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.
67 ,021-010/05-730 7103
EXAMINER
PARK,HYUND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN F. WU1
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/354,214
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, MARK NAGUMO, and JEFFREY W.
ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant's disclosed invention is directed to a method and system for
analyzing noise transmission, such as for the purpose of assessing the
contributions of noise source panels of a vibrating structure to the noise
(sound pressure level (SPL)) measured at a given point in the field.
1 Appellant identifies Wayne State University as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
The claimed subject matter is disclosed as being useful for assessing
the amount of acoustic energy transmitted through various structural
components, such as the instrument panel doors, floor and ceiling of a
vehicle passenger compartment, to identify the individual contributions of
the various components/panels of a structure for devising vehicle noise
reduction strategies (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Appellant discloses using a plurality of transducers, such as
microphones, arranged near at least one of the contributing panels, for
measuring acoustic pressure (the sum of acoustic pressures radiated from all
panels) (Spec i-fi-1 1, 9). Appellant discloses that the microphones are
connected via a signal analyzer or a sonic digitizer to a computer that is
programmed to perform certain specified reconstruction and other functions,
which acoustic pressure measurements and processing functions can be
conducted for multiple panels so as to permit correlation and ranking of
noise contributions from individual panels (Spec. i-fi-1 4--9; 15--40; Fig. 1 ).
According to the Specification, "acoustic intensity on the surface of a
vibrating object is reconstructed using a Helmholtz equation least squares
(HELS) based nearfield acoustical holography (NAH) method, as described
in U.S. Patent No. 5,712,805" (Spec. i-f 5; see Spec. i-f 15). Appellant
discloses equations and/or functional expressions representing a pressure-to-
pressure transfer function, a pressure-to-velocity transfer function, and a
normal surface acoustic intensity reconstruction based on HELS based NAH
that yields the acoustic pressure and the normal component of velocity on
the noise source surface (Spec. i-fi-115-21, 23-35).
2
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for analyzing noise including the steps of:
measuring acoustic pressure with a plurality of
microphones at a plurality of locations near a noise source;
reconstructing in a computer a surface acoustic pressure
and a normal surface velocity on a source surface of the noise
source based upon the measured acoustic pressures at the
plurality of locations;
reconstructing in the computer a normal component of
acoustic intensity on the source;
creating in the computer a pressure=to=pressure transfer
function that correlates the surface acoustic pressure to field
acoustic pressure;
creating in the computer a pressure-to-velocity transfer
function that correlates the normal surface velocity to the field
acoustic pressure; and
dividing the pressure-to-pressure transfer function and
the pressure-to-velocity transfer function into individual
components that cover a plurality of panel surfaces of the noise
source.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Chung us 4,236,040 Nov. 25, 1980
3
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
Murakami et al., US 6,324,290 Bl Nov. 27, 2001
Zhao et al., Reconstruction of vibro-acoustic fields using hybrid nearfield
acoustic holography, 282 Journal of Sound and Vibration 1183-1199
(2004).
Kim et al., On the reconstruction of the vibro-acousticfield over the surface
enclosing an interior space using the boundary element method, 100( 5)
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 3003-3016 (1996).
Zhang et al., Acoustic Diagnostic Analysis of Automobile Passenger
Compartments, INCE conference proceedings (1995).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kim and Murakami. Claims 4, 8,
and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Zhao in view of Kim, Murakami, and Chung. Claims 12, 13, and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao in view
of Kim, Murakami, and Zhang.
After a careful review of the opposing positions articulated by
Appellant and the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness adduced by the
Examiner, we determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in any of the Examiner's obviousness rejections. In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer and in the Final Office Action. We offer the
following for emphasis.
Concerning the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kim and
Murakami, Appellant argues all of the rejected claims, including
4
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
independent claims 1, 5, and 6, together as a group and Appellant furnishes
additional arguments pertaining to independent claims 1 and 5 together as a
group. The dependent claims are not separately argued. Claim 1 is a
member of both claim groupings. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the
representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal as to this
ground of rejection.
Concerning all of the claims subject to the Examiner's first stated
obviousness rejection, Appellant maintains that: (1) Kim teaches "using
normal velocity on the surface and acoustic pressure to determine acoustic
power" and that deriving acoustic intensity from acoustic power is not a
derivation of the "normal component of the acoustic intensity on the
source"; and (2) even if Kim teaches or suggests deriving acoustic intensity,
it would not have been obvious to determine acoustic intensity as part of the
method of Zhao because "[ t ]he Kim method and the Zhao method are
substantially different" (App. Br. 4--5; claim 1 ).
However, Appellant does not explicitly address the Examiner's
determination that Kim "shows calculating the normal component of the
radiated power" using acoustic pressure and normal velocity vectors taught
by Kim (Ans. 3--4; Kim, p. 3005, Equation 5). Nor does Appellant articulate
a reasoned explanation, much less evince why the Examiner's finding that
the power is radiating in the normal direction to the surface and that,
consequently, the calculated intensity is a normal intensity is incorrect so as
to demonstrate harmful error in the Examiner's position as to the teachings,
suggestions, and inferences that can be derived from the disclosure of Kim
concerning calculating a normal component of the acoustic intensity on the
source surface (id.).
5
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
Furthermore, Appellant's argument to the effect that Zhao and Kim
are significantly different and, as such, indicate the non-obviousness of the
proposed combination of the applied references and, consequently, the
proposed combination would not suggest determining acoustic intensity (as
taught by Kim) as part of the method of Zhao is unavailing (App. Br. 5).
This is because this line of argument is non-substantiated and Appellant does
not address with any specificity the Examiner's further finding that Zhao's
method, like Kim's method, teaches acoustic pressure and normal velocity
vectors (App. Br. 5; Ans. 3--4). In addition, Appellant's contention is at
least partially undercut to the extent that Appellant is arguing that it would
not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reconstruct a
normal acoustic intensity (as taught by Kim) on the source as part of Zhao's
method because Appellant acknowledges that such reconstruction can be
conducted using the prior art technique described in prior U.S. Patent No.
5,712,805 (Spec. ,-r 5).2
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Appellant further argues that, contrary
to the Examiner's determination, the representative claim 1 functional
expression "dividing the pressure-to-pressure transfer function and the
pressure-to-velocity-transfer function into individual components that cover
a plurality of panel surfaces of the noise source" is not disclosed at page
2 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant's specification may be
used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention and that
consideration of the prior art cited by the Examiner may include
consideration of the admitted prior art found in an applicant's specification.
In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571 (CCPA 1975); In re Davis, 305 F.2d
501, 503 (CCPA 1962); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-1040 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
6
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
1187 of Zhao and that "Zhao does not disclose a plurality of panel surfaces
of the noise source as the Examiner admits." (App. Br. 5).
As for the Examiner's additional reliance on Murakami, Appellant
contends that Murakami "does not even begin to teach how one could obtain
individual panel contributions from panels in a vehicle using the modified
Zhao system" (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2). Thus, Appellant asserts that none
of the applied references teach the dividing step of representative claim 1.
Concerning this latter argument, we concur with the Examiner that
representative claim 1 is not limited to "obtaining individual panel
contributions from panels in a vehicle" as argued (Ans. 6).
As for the "dividing" recitation of representative claim 1, this
recitation specifies that the produced "individual components" of this
function dividing step "cover a plurality of panel surfaces of the noise
source". Appellant does not define the claim term "panel surfaces of the
noise source" or the claim term "panel" in the subject Specification.
Consequently, in giving these claim terms their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the subject Specification when read from the point of
view of one of ordinary skill in the art, we determine that the claim term
"panel" refers to any separate or distinct part of a structure comprising a
noise source. As a result, the claim term "panel surfaces of the noise
source" encompasses two or more surfaces of the noise source structure
(claim 1; see generally Spec.). In like manner, we determine that the claim
term "source surface of the noise source" as employed in claim 1
encompasses, but is not limited to a panel surface of the noise source.
7
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
As such, the reasons advanced by the Examiner in the Final Rejection,
the Advisory Action3, and in the Answer for maintaining the Examiner's
first stated obviousness rejection and for rejecting Appellant's argument
concerning the "dividing" recitation of representative claim 1 are sound.
because the functional "dividing" recitation of representative claim 1 is open
to dividing the transfer functions in a manner such that the individual
components arrived at "cover a plurality of panel surfaces of the noise
source" (claim 1 ), such as surfaces of the engine block of Zhao (Ans. 5-6).
Appellant does not otherwise articulate with any particularity how the
Examiner errs in applying Zhao and Murakami to the latter recitation of
claim 1 by specifically addressing all of the Examiner's findings and
reasoning respecting this argued recitation (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2; see
Final Office Act. 3-6, 17-19; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 5-7).
For reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and
in the Answer and for reasons set forth above, Appellant's argument fails to
demonstrate harmful error in the Examiner's first stated obviousness
rejection. Consequently, we affirm the latter rejection.
As for the Examiner's second stated rejection involving dependent
claims 4, 8, and 11, Appellant argues the claims as a group and in addition to
the arguments presented with respect to the Examiner's first stated
obviousness rejection adds a conclusive contention that "Chung does not
even begin to disclose how one would rank the contributions from each of
the plurality of panel surfaces in the modified Zhao system" (App. Br. 5).
However, the Appellant does not discuss with any particularity the
3 Advisory Action communicated September 27, 2012 (seep. 2).
8
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
Examiner's additional application of the teachings of the applied prior art,
including the additional teaching of Chung in the rejection of the these
dependent claims so as to expose any harmful error therein (Final Office
Act. 11, 12, 19; Advisory Act. 2). As such, we consider the argument
respecting these dependent claims as tantamount to relying on the same
arguments as presented against the independent claims on which these latter
claims ultimately depend.
It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner's second stated
obviousness rejection.
Concerning the Examiner's third stated obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 12, 13, and 14, Appellant relies on the same arguments as
presented against the Examiner's first stated rejection and conclusively
contends that the applied references do not teach providing a certain
identified correlation recitation of claim 12 and how to provide a certain
identified acoustic contribution determination of claims 13 and 14 (App. Br.
6). Appellant does not particularly address the Examiner's application of the
prior art as set forth in the Final Office Action and the Advisory Action and,
consequently, exposes no reversible error therein (Final office Act. 12-16,
19; Advisory Act. 2). 4
It follows that we shall sustain the latter rejection.
4 Appellant does not articulate why the additional argument presented in the
Reply Brief respecting claims 12-14 could not have been earlier presented in
the Appeal Brief, particularly given the Examiner's references to the
boundary element method in the applied prior art as set forth in the Final
Office Action and the Advisory Acton. Accordingly, we do not consider the
belated argument presented in the Reply Brief.
9
Appeal2013-008407
Application 11/3 54,214
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims is 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).
AFFIRMED
10