HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

14488731 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2020)

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.
14/488,731 09/17/2014 Glen RUTLEDGE HARM 0367 PUS 1063
109676 7590 09/02/2020
Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman
1000 Town Center
Twenty Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
LEE, PING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN RUTLEDGE, TRENT ROLF, and BRANDON GRAHAM
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES B. ARPIN, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 18–20, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Harman International Industries, Inc.
as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “a feedback suppression test filter
correlation system.” Spec. ¶ 1.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A feedback suppression system for detecting a feedback peak,
comprising:
a memory and a controller in communication therewith,
the controller configured to:
identify at least one peak of an audio input signal
that includes audio data and acoustic feedback;
apply at least one signature to the at least one peak;
determine a response of the at least one peak to the
at least one signature, wherein the response of the at least
one peak includes a change in slope of a magnitude of the
peak;
identify the at least one peak as a feedback peak in
response to the change in slope; and
set a notch filter at the identified peak to eliminate
the acoustic feedback of the audio input signal at a
loudspeaker.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on at least the following references:
Name Number Date
Salvetti US 2009/0245552 A1 Oct. 1, 2009
Troxel US 2006/021582 A1 Sept. 28, 2006
Williams US 7,613,529 B1 Nov. 3, 2009
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Claims Statute Reference(s)/Basis Non-Final Act.
1–3, 5, 18–20 § 102 Troxel 5
1, 2, 5, 18–20 § 102 Williams 7
6, 7 § 103 Williams 10
6, 7 § 103 Troxel, Williams 11
3 § 103 Williams, Salvetti 12
18–20 § 112(a) Written description 4
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Troxel anticipates claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Williams anticipates claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in concluding the proposed combinations
render obvious dependent claims 6 and 7?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Williams
and Salvetti teaches or suggests “the signature includes at least one of a pitch
shift and frequency shift,” as recited in claim 3?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the limitation “adjust a gain of
the notch filter in response to the slope threshold exceeding the slope,” as
recited in claim 18, lacks sufficient written description support?
ANALYSIS
§ 102 over Troxel
(Claims 1–3, 5, and 18–20)
Claim 1 recites a requirement to identify a peak “in response to” a
“change in slope of a magnitude of the peak.”
Appellant argues that “the alleged decay in Troxel relates to iterations
and not to a slope.” Appeal Br. 5. Further, Appellant argues that “the
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

4
‘permanent notch’ [in Troxel] is not set at a peak identified ‘as a feedback
peak in response to the change in slope’ as a result of the signature, as
recited in claim 1.” Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As the Examiner
points out, Appellant “fails to follow the entire process as illustrated in
Fig. 3” of Troxel. Ans. 15. In step 318 of Figure 3, Troxel asks whether a
frequency is a potential feedback frequency (i.e., a claimed “feedback
peak”). If the frequency is potentially a feedback frequency, then in step
330, Troxel places a “Test Notch.” The Examiner treats Troxel’s test notch
as the claimed “signature.” Ans. 13. The flow in Figure 3 then loops back
to the top and performs steps 304 through 314 before ultimately arriving at
step 320, which asks, “Is Decay Criteria Satisfied?” Ans. 13, 15–16; Troxel
¶¶ 27, 30–34 (“The feedback control algorithm shown in FIG. 3 repeats
continuously.”). As the Examiner correctly points out, “Fig. 7 provides . . .
more detail” of step 320 and what happens “after placing the test notch at the
potential peak frequency.” Ans. 14; Troxel ¶¶ 27 (“The method shown in
FIG. 3 embodies various sub-methods that are described in greater detail
with respect to FIGS. 4–7.”), 33 (discussing the “decay criteria” of “step
320” and how “[t]he decay criteria and determination is described in greater
detail with respect to FIG. 7 below”).
Troxel’s Figure 7 explains that the decay criteria are satisfied by
checking whether magnitude has dropped by a specific amount “if exactly
two iterations have elapsed.” Troxel ¶¶ 56, 33. Thus, contrary to
Appellant’s argument, Troxel is not concerned solely with “iterations and
not . . . a slope.” Appeal Br. 5. Rather, Troxel tests for a change in
magnitude over a specific number of iterations. Ans. 14–15. Appellant fails
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

5
to explain whether or why such a change in magnitude over time fails to
teach the claimed change in slope.
Turning back to Troxel’s Figure 3, if the decay criteria are satisfied in
step 320, then step 332 places a “Permanent Notch” at that frequency
because “the potential feedback frequency . . . is a ‘feedback peak.’” Ans.
16. The Examiner treats Troxel’s permanent notch as the claimed “notch
filter.” Id. at 14. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Troxel sets a
permanent notch at a peak identified as a feedback peak in response to the
change in slope from the test notch.
Appellant, therefore, fails to persuade us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Troxel
of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 5, and 18–20, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 6; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
§ 102 over Williams
(Claims 1, 2, 5, 18–20)
Similar to the argument against Troxel, Appellant argues that
“Williams fails to make any recitation of ‘slope’” and “Williams does not
identify a feedback peak ‘in response to the change in slope’” because
Williams discloses only “an amplitude at a frequency,” not slope. Appeal
Br. 7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that in Williams, “amplitude is
measured after a predetermined test time.” Ans. 16. Specifically, Williams
discloses, “[i]f, after a predetermined test time, the measured amplitude at
the candidate frequency has been reduced by a predetermined minimum
amount, then genuine feedback is said to have been detected, and the filter is
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

6
left in place at a predetermined depth.” Williams 8:16–20. We agree with
the Examiner that “the amount of change (reduced amplitude) . . . in the
short amount of time is measured,” which “represents a change in slope
which is going downward after the notch filter was placed at the candidate
frequency.” Ans. 17.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Williams
of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 5, and 18–20, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 7–8; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
§ 103 over Troxel and Williams
(Claims 6 and 7)
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites “the response of the
at least one peak includes determining a correlation coefficient between gain
changes in the notch filter and slope changes in audio input signal.” Claim 7
depends from claim 6 and further recites “the at least one peak is identified
as a feedback peak in response to the correlation coefficient exceeding a
correlation threshold.”
In the Office Action, the Examiner finds:
Williams teaches if there is “good correlation” between the gain
changes and measured amplitude changes, then the frequency is
determined to be the feedback frequency that should be
suppressed. If there is “poor correlation”, then the frequency is
not a feedback frequency (col. 3, lines 50-59). Thus, Williams
suggests finding the correlation between the gain changes and the
measured amplitude changes. Examiner takes Official Notice
that determining a correlation value between two variables is
notoriously well known in the art. “Good” or “bad”, as one
skilled in the art would have recognized, is a relative term against
a value to be compared with. Based on such teaching, one skilled
in the art would have been motivated to determine or set a
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

7
correlation threshold in order to classify whether the determined
correlation value (determined by the responses and gain changes)
resulting a “good correlation” or “poor correlation”.
Non-Final Act. 11–12.
Appellant argues that “the Official Notice includes assertions of
technical facts that are not capable of instant and unquestionable
demonstration,” specifically “for a ‘correlation coefficient [to exceed] a
correlation threshold.’” Appeal Br. 9 (brackets in original). Appellant
further argues “the references do not even teach a correlation coefficient.”
Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner provides a newly cited reference of
StatSoft’s “Canonical Analysis” “in response to appellant’s request to show
support for [the] Official Notice taken in the previous rejection.” Ans. 10
n.2; see also MPEP § 2144.03(C). This reference discusses various methods
such as a “standard . . . correlation coefficient” to “measure[] the extent to
which two variables are related.” StatSoft 1. Appellant does not challenge
the Examiner’s determinations based on StatSoft. See Reply Br. 2. Nor
does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s reliance on Williams’ distinction
between a “good correlation” and a “poor correlation.” Williams 3:50–59.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Troxel
and Williams of claims 6 and 7.
§ 103 over Williams
(Claims 6 and 7)
Appellant does not argue this rejection separately. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Williams of claims 6 and 7 for the same
reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Troxel and Williams above.
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

8
§ 103 over Williams and Salvetti
(Claim 3)
Dependent claim 3 recites “the signature includes at least one of a
pitch shift and frequency shift.” The Examiner relies on the additional
reference Salvetti for teaching this further limitation of claim 3. Non-Final
Act. 12–13.
Appellant argues:
The claims apply the signatures prior to setting of the “notch
filter . . . . to eliminate the acoustic feedback.” Salvetti, on the
other hand and according to the Examiner, discloses applying a
notch filter for the feedback suppression. Thus, the Examiner is
confusing the signature, as claimed, with the notch filter used for
feedback suppression in Salvetti.
Appeal Br. 9–10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant is arguing
against Salvetti individually, not in the Examiner’s proposed combination
with Williams. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner relies on Williams for teaching both a “test notch”
and a “notch filter.” Ans. 18. Salvetti discloses that “[i]n one embodiment,
a notch filter is adjusted which is used to reduce acoustic feedback within
the frequency region of the notch” but that “[o]ther attenuation methods
include . . . shifting the phase and/or frequency of the output.” Salvetti ¶ 22
(emphasis added). Based on this disclosure, the Examiner determines “[t]his
means that to test whether the candidate frequency is the genuine feedback,
any one of [the disclosed] mechanisms, such as a notch filter, or shifting the
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

9
phase and/or frequency, taught in Salvetti could be used to determine
whether the magnitude at the candidate frequency has reduced after the
testing mechanism has been applied.” Ans. 18. Therefore, contrary to
Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s proposed combination uses Salvetti’s
frequency shifting for Williams’ test notch (i.e., the claimed signature).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 3.
§ 112(a): Claims 18–20
The § 112(a) issue is whether the Specification provides sufficient
written description support for performing certain actions on “the slope”
rather than on “a change in the slope.” In particular, independent claim 18
recites (with emphasis added):
recognize a change in a slope of the at least one peak in
response to the notch filter;
compare the slope to a slope threshold; and
adjust a gain of the notch filter in response to the slope
threshold exceeding the slope.
Unlike claim 18’s comparison to slope, however, the “Detailed
Description” of the Specification discloses “the processor 106 may
determine whether the change in slope exceeds a slope threshold.” Spec.
¶ 67 (emphasis added). According to the Examiner, “Appellant fails to
explain the discrepancy between the disclosure and the claimed limitation.”
Ans. 12.
Appellant argues that claim 18 was “part of the original disclosure and
thus adequate support exists to the recitation in claim 18.” Reply Br. 2;
Appeal Br. 3.
Appellant further argues the Specification’s discussion of later
adjusting the gain to find “the optimal gain” (block 930 in Figure 9) rather
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

10
than an initial identification of the peak (block 920) provides written
description support for claim 18. Appeal Br. 3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 37, 67). The
Examiner responds by determining that (A) block 930 must be triggered by
block 920, yet (B) under Appellant’s interpretation of how block 930
provides written description support, the condition for block 920 would not
be met. Ans. 12–13 (“when the slope is less than the slope threshold, it
means that the notch filter does not reduce the peak” and “would not be
treated as feedback peak”). “Therefore, element 930 identified by appellant
also does not provide support for the claimed imitation.” Id. at 13.
Appellant fails to adequately address this determination by the Examiner.
The Federal Circuit has held that “[o]riginal claims are part of the
specification and in many cases will satisfy the written description
requirement.” Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage
Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, language
appearing in an original claim does not guarantee sufficient written
description support. “If a purported description of an invention does not
meet the requirements of the statute, the fact that it appears as an original
claim or in the specification does not save it. A claim does not become more
descriptive by its repetition, or its longevity.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-
Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968–69 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also ScriptPro, LLC
v. Innovation Assocs., Inc., 762 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“When a
specification is ambiguous about which of several features are stand-alone
inventions, the original claims can help resolve the ambiguity, though even
original claims may be insufficient as descriptions or be insufficiently
supported by the rest of the specification.”).
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

11
The present case is an example of an original claim not providing
sufficient written description support. This is not an instance of a
specification disclosing an alternative embodiment. Crown Packaging, 635
F.3d at 1380–81. Rather, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the omission of “the change in” in claim 18 to be a drafting error.
Here, independent claim 18 compares “the slope to a slope threshold”
but the detailed description of the invention compares “the change in slope”
to the same threshold. Spec. ¶ 67 (emphasis added). The other claims
perform substantially similar actions on a “change in” slope rather than on
the slope itself. E.g., claim 5 (“the at least one peak is identified as a
feedback peak in response to the change in slope exceeding a slope
threshold”), claim 1 (“determine a response” that “includes a change in slope
of a magnitude of the peak”; “identify the at least one peak as a feedback
peak in response to the change in slope”). In claim 18 itself, the prior step
recites to “recognize a change in a slope,” yet the rest of the claim does not
refer to the “change” again.
For written description, “the test for sufficiency is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Given how the language of claim 18 conflicts
with the other claims, the rest of the Specification, and itself—and given the
Examiner’s determination that Appellant’s interpretation would never be
triggered—a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
omission of “the change in” in claim 18 to be a drafting error, not an
alternative invention.
Appeal 2019-003588
Application 14/488,731

12
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 112(a) rejection of
independent claim 18, and its dependent claims 19 and 20, which Appellant
does not argue separately. See Appeal Br. 3; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s) /
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 18–20 102 Troxel 1–3, 5, 18–20
1, 2, 5, 18–20 102 Williams 1, 2, 5, 18–20
6, 7 103 Williams 6, 7
6, 7 103 Troxel, Williams 6, 7
3 103 Williams, Salvetti 3
18–20 112(a) Written description 18–20
OVERALL 1–3, 5–7, 18–20
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED