Plantronics, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2020

14660689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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.
14/660,689 03/17/2015 Shridhar K Mukund 01-7893/US-RE1 7381
32681 7590 08/24/2020
PLANTRONICS, INC.
IP DEPARTMENT/LEGAL
345 ENCINAL STREET
P.O. BOX 635
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-0635
EXAMINER
RALIS, STEPHEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2020 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):
neely.frazier@poly.com
patentdocket@poly.com
patents@poly.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHRIDHAR K. MUKUND
___________

Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. Claims 1, 3, and 6
have been amended and claims 8 and 9 are new. Original claims 2, 5, and 7
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The instant application is a reissue application of US 8,670,554 B2,
issued March 11, 2014, based on Application No. 13/452,550, filed on
April 20, 2012, and claims priority to provisional Application
No. 61/477,573, filed on April 20, 2011 and provisional Application
No. 61/486,088, filed on May 13, 2011.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to encoding multiple microphone signals into
a composite source-separable audio (SSA) signal. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for network transmission of voice
captured through a plurality of microphones spatially disposed
in a first group and a second group, comprising:
combining two digital audio signals into a composite
source separable audio (SSA)signal, each digital audio signal of
the two digital audio signals representing an independent
mixture of a target source voice and an ambient noise, wherein
outputs of the plurality of microphones within the first group
are summed together as a first digital audio signal of the two

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Plantronics, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

3
digital audio signals and outputs of the plurality of microphones
within the second group are summed together as a second
digital audio signal of the two digital audio signals, thereby
defining a first virtual microphone and a second virtual
microphone, respectively, and wherein the combining
comprises interleaving the two digital audio signals to generate
the composite SSA signal; and
separating the two digital audio signals within the
composite SSA signal into two mono audio signals by
performing a first instance of directed source separation (DSS)
on the composite SSA signal, the DSS comprising:
generating one or more control signals indicating
an instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio, in the composite
SSA signal, between the target source voice and the
ambient noise;
under direction of the one or more control signals,
separating the target source voice of the composite SSA
signal into a first mono audio signal; and
under direction of the one or more control signals,
separating the ambient noise of the composite SSA signal
into a second mono audio signal.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Acero et al. US 2001/0037195 A1 Nov. 01, 2001
Matsuo US 6,618,485 B1 Sept. 09, 2003
Harville et al. US 2005/0005025 A1 Jan. 06, 2005
Stokes, III et al. US 2006/0210096 A1 Sept. 21, 2006
Hetherington US 2009/0116661 A1 May 07, 2009
Mukund et al. US 2010/0098266 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Kannappan et al. US 2010/0130198 A1 May 27, 2010

REJECTIONS
A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

4
B. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
C. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 US.C § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite and for failing to set forth and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
D. Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, and Acero.
E. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Stokes III.
F. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Matsuo.
G. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Kannappan.
H. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Harville.
I. Claims 1, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Kannappan.
J. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, Kannappan, and Stokes.
K. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, Kannappan, and Matsuo.
L. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, Kannappan, and Harville.
M. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hetherington, Stokes III, and Acero.
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

5
N. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, and Matsuo.
O. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, and Kannappan.
P. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over in Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, and Harville.
Q. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, and Kannappan.
R. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, Kannappan, and Harville.

OPINION
§ 112, First Paragraph Rejection—Enablement
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 3–10) that the
limitation “separating the two audio signals within the composite SSA signal
into two mono audio signals by performing a first instance of directed source
separation (DSS),” as recited in independent claim 1, complies with the
enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that “[c]laims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification
. . . does not reasonably provide enablement for the separation of the
composite SSA into a target source and ambient noise respective mono
audio signals.” (Final Act. 8.) In particular, the Examiner articulated that
[b]ased on the Wands factors (B) [the nature of the invention],
(F) [the amount of direction provided by the inventor], (G) [the
existence of working examples] and most particularly (A) [the
breadth of the claims] and (H) [the quantity of experimentation
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

6
needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the
disclosure], the Examiner concludes that Applicant’s
specification, while being enabling for combining two digital
virtual microphone signals by interleaving the two digital
virtual microphone signals into a composite source separable
audio signal, does not reasonably enable those skilled in the art
to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without
undue experimentation.
(Id. at 11–12 (emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 11.) We do not agree with
the Examiner’s conclusions.
Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple
factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many
factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Wands factors include the following:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or
use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Id. (citations omitted); see also MPEP § 2164.01(a). In reviewing for lack
of enablement, the Wands court elected to consider “all of the factors.” Id.
at 740. However, it is not necessary to review all the Wands factors to find a
disclosure enabling. Rather, the Wands factors “are illustrative, not
mandatory” and what is relevant to an enablement determination depends
upon the facts of the particular case. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co.,
927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v.
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

7
Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Warner-Lambert Co. v.
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Wands Factor (A) – The Breadth of the Claims
The Examiner found that “the method of claim 1 is unbounded with
regard to ‘DSS’” and “the two separating step function limitations do not
contain any meaningful acts for performing the individual separating steps
of the ‘DSS’ process, rather it is defined in terms of the end results.” (Final
Act. 9.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
However, independent claim 1 further recites the “DSS comprising
. . . [i] generating one or more control signals indicating an instantaneous
signal-to-noise ratio, . . . [ii] under direction of the one or more control
signals, separating the target source voice of the composite SSA signal into a
first mono audio signal; and [iii] under direction of the one or more control
signals, separating the ambient noise of the composite SSA signal into a
second mono audio signal.” Thus, the claimed “DSS” process is further
defined by three sub-limitations. Contrary to the Examiner’s conclusory
statement that “claim 1 is unbounded with regard to ‘DSS’,” the Examiner
has not adequately explained why such three additional sub-limitations “do
not contain any meaningful acts for performing the individual separating
steps of the ‘DSS’ process.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “[t]he
DSS of Claim 1 is not overly broad, but is explicitly limited by three
additional limitations that narrow the scope of the DSS of Claim 1 and
provide direction to one of skill in the art as to how the DSS will be
implemented” and “[t]he Office provides no argument nor evidence about
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

8
the direction that this claim limitation would give one of skill in the art on
how to implement the DSS without undue experimentation.” (Reply Br. 4.)

Wands Factor (B) –The Nature of the Invention
The Examiner found that “the invention is directed to the combination
of voice and ambient noise signals attained by virtual microphones to
provide a composite signal, the separation of the composite signal, and the
ability to perform these operations in a network transmission environment”
and “that the invention is complex, particularly to how the separation of the
composite signal is performed.” (Final Act. 9.) We do not agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Other than summarizing the subject matter of the claim 1 and
providing a conclusory statement that “that the invention is complex,
particularly to how the separation of the composite signal is performed,” the
Examiner has not adequately explained why the invention is complex.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “the
Office’s conclusion that the invention complex merely because it is directed
to steps of combining and separating signals is wholly unsupported” and
“[w]ithout any evidence about the level of one of ordinary skill, the Office
cannot show that the nature of the invention is complex.” (Reply Br. 6.)

Wands Factor (F) – The Amount of Direction Provided by the Inventor
The Examiner found that “the direction provided . . . regarding the
‘DSS’ is inadequate or minimal with regard to the scope of the claims.”
(Final Act. 9.) In particular, “the Examiner finds that the specification is
silent as to any explicit acts and/or algorithms necessary for performing the
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

9
inventive and specific claimed required DSS process to separate the voice
and ambient noise.” (Id. at 10; see also Ans. 9–11.) We do not agree.
In reference to Figure 7, the ’554 patent discloses that “[t]he cross
coupled Directed Source Separator (DSS), 071, directed by the control
signals is used to separate out the target voice signal into the output Channel
A' and the ambient noise into Channel B', collectively the output SSA, 078”
and “[t]here are several algorithmic approaches to source separation (often
referred in literature as Blind Source Separation (BSS)).” (Col. 4, ll. 54–60.)
Moreover, the ’554 discloses that “blind source separation (BSS) has been
discussed in the academia.” (Col. 1, ll. 65–66.) Because that ’554 patent
discloses that BSS algorithm is “discussed in the academia” and “referred in
literature,” such BSS algorithm need not be disclosed. See Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“a
patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”).
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “there
is no evidence as to the vagueness of the disclosure’s reference to BSS as an
underlying technique that might be used in conjunction with the claimed
control signals” and “[t]he disclosure explicitly directs one of skill in the art
that multiple different underlying algorithms might be used, and,
specifically, a well-known technique (that is known in literature) such as
BSS.” (Reply Br. 8.)

Wands Factor (G) – The Existence of Working Examples
The Examiner found that “the specification is silent as to any acts
and/or algorithms sufficient to perform any process to separate the voice and
ambient noise signals” and thus, “the specification fails to disclose any
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

10
suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the function recited in
the functional limitation of the ‘DSS.’” (Final Act. 11.)
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for reasons similar to those
discussed previously with respect to Wands factor (F), the amount of
direction provided by the inventor.

Wands Factor (H) – The Quantity of Experimentation
The Examiner found that “the quantity of experimentation needed is
high” and “the functionality recited in ‘DSS’ is complex” because of
“insufficient disclosure [in the ’554 patent of] to how the control signals
affect the source separation to differentiate over the principle of
conventional BSS.” (Final Act. 11.) We do not agree.
Other than providing a conclusory statement that “the quantity of
experimentation needed is high,” the Examiner has not adequately explained
why such needed experimentation is high. Moreover, as discussed
previously, the ’554 patent discloses that one algorithmic approach to
Directed Source Separator (DSS) is Blind Source Separation (BSS), which is
known in both academia and in the technical literature.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “the
specification is not silent as to ‘any’ acts or algorithms to perform ‘any’
process to separate voice and ambient noise signals” and “the present
disclosure directs one of skill to use BSS as one such approach.” (Reply
Br. 10 (emphases omitted).)
Thus, the Examiner has not adequately demonstrated that Wands
factors (A), (B), (F), (G), and (H) weigh towards undue experimentation,
and the Examiner has not addressed Wands factors (C), (D), and (E). We
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

11
conclude that the ’554 patent enables those skilled in the art to make and use
the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for compliance with the enablement
requirement. Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.

§ 112, First Paragraph Rejection—Written Description
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12–13) that the
limitation “separating the two audio signals within the composite SSA signal
into two mono audio signals by performing a first instance of directed source
separation (DSS),” recited in independent claim 1, complies with the written
description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner found that the limitation “separating the two audio
signals within the composite SSA signal into two mono audio signals by
performing a first instance of directed source separation (DSS)” is not
supported by the ’554 patent. (Final Act. 15.) In particular, the Examiner
found that
the ’554 patent discloses the “DSS” as simply a ‘black box’
which receives control signals as input and produces separated
target voice and ambient noise signals via ‘several algorithmic
approaches’, but is silent to how the actual acts (i.e., including
any algorithms) utilize the control signals to perform the actual
separation of the two audio signals within the composite SSA
(Id.) We do not agree.
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

12
In the “Background” section, the ’554 patent discloses the following:
An alternate method called blind source separation (BSS)
has been discussed in the academia. Given two microphones
placed in strategic locations with respect to two sources of
sound, it is possible to separate out the two sources without any
distortion. As shown in FIG. 3, the first microphone 031 is
placed close to the first sound source 032, capturing a first
sound mixture 033 predominated by the first sound source.
Similarly the second microphone 034 is placed in the proximity
of the second source 305, generating a sound mixture 036
predominated by the second source. The source separation unit
037 generates two outputs 038, separating the two sound
sources with little or no distortion. However, in the real world,
it is not practical to place a microphone close to the ambient
noise, but away from the target voice.
(Col. 1, l. 65 to col. 2, l. 11 (emphasis added).)
Moreover, the ’554 patent discloses the following:
In FIG. 4B microphones 049 are positioned to assume that the
target voice needs to be discriminated from ambient noise along
both horizontal and vertical directions. In both these cases, the
preferred direction of the target voice is perpendicular to the
device.
(Col. 4, ll. 24–28.)
In all the above cases, the impact of target voice from the
desired look direction is similar on both the virtual
microphones. The impact of ambient noise is relatively
dissimilar on the two virtual microphones.
(Col. 4, ll. 43–46.)
The cross coupled Directed Source Separator (DSS), 071,
directed by the control signals is used to separate out the target
voice signal into the output Channel A' and the ambient noise
into Channel B', collectively the output SSA, 078. There are
several algorithmic approaches to source separation (often
referred in literature as Blind Source Separation (BSS)).
(Col. 4, ll. 54–60 (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

13
Because the ’554 patent discloses that: (i) blind source separation
(BSS) is used to separate two sources of sound, and is well-known in
academia as well as in the technical literature; (ii) Directed Source Separator
(DSS) is used to separate the target voice signal into output Channel A' and
ambient noise into Channel B'; and (iii) BSS is one algorithmic approach to
source separation, such as DSS, the ’554 patent provides adequate written
description support for the newly added limitation “separating the two audio
signals within the composite SSA signal into two mono audio signals by
performing a first instance of directed source separation (DSS).” Moreover,
as discussed previously, because that ’554 patent discloses that BSS
algorithm is “discussed in the academia” and “referred in literature,” such
BSS algorithm need not be disclosed. See Hybritech, 802 F.2d at 1384 (“a
patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”).
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments “that
directed source/sound separation (DSS) is accomplished by applying Blind
Source Separation (BSS) algorithm to the composite SSA signal under the
direction of at least one control signal” and “as admitted in . . . the
Specification, BSS has been well described in academia and literature.”
(Appeal Br. 12; id. at 13.)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the ’554 patent fails to
provide written description support for the limitation “separating the two
audio signals within the composite SSA signal into two mono audio signals
by performing a first instance of directed source separation (DSS).”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for compliance with the written
description requirement. Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

14
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.

§ 112, Second Paragraph Rejection—Indefiniteness
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the similar reasons as discussed
previously with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
US.C § 112, first paragraph, for compliance with the written description
requirement.

§ 103 Rejection—Hetherington, Mukund, and Acero
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 19–21)
that the combination of Hetherington, Mukund, and Acero would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “DSS
comprising . . . generating one or more control signals indicating an
instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio.”
The Examiner found that the source separation method of Acero, as
illustrated in Figure 7, in which the first sound source (e.g., voice of speaker)
is separated from the second sound source (e.g. other unwanted sounds),
corresponds to the limitation “DSS comprising . . . generating one or more
control signals indicating an instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio.” (Final
Act. 28; see also Ans. 19–20.) In particular, “the Examiner construes the
DSS as simply a separator/process that utilizes one or more control signals
to separate both the target source voice and ambient noise from a single
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

15
composite SSA signal into respective first and second mono audio signals.”
(Final Act. 27.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Acero relates to “[s]ound source separation . . . using convolutional
mixing independent component analysis based on a priori knowledge of the
target sound source.” (Abstract.) Figure 7 of Acero illustrates flowchart
700 of the general approach to achieve sound source separation for the voice
of speaker 502 and second sound source 706, such as “other types of sound
and noise that are not desired in the output sound source signals.” (¶ 43.)
Acero explains that “[e]ach of the first sound source 502 and the second
sound source 706 are recorded by the microphones 506 and 508” (id.) and
“[t]he microphone signals are then subjected to unmixing filters (704) to
yield the output sound source signals 502' and 706'” (¶ 44).
Although the Examiner cited to the sound source separation as
illustrated in Figure 7, in which unmixing filters 704 yield output source
signals 502' and 706' from first sound source 502 and the second sound
source 706, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Acero teaches the limitation “DSS comprising . . . generating
one or more control signals indicating an instantaneous signal-to-noise
ratio.” In particular, Acero is silent to respect to a signal-to-noise ratio,
much less the limitation “control signals indicating an instantaneous signal-
to-noise ratio,” as recited in independent claim 1. In addition, the
Examiner’s construction of the term “DSS” does not address the meaning of
“instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio.” Thus, on this record, the Examiner has
not demonstrated that Acero teaches the limitation “DSS comprising . . .
generating one or more control signals indicating an instantaneous signal-to-
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

16
noise ratio,” as recited in claim 1. Moreover, Hetherington and Mukund do
not cure the deficiencies of Acero.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
Notably, there is no mapping of the reference to the claim
term whether using the plain language of the claim (“an
instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio . . . between the target source
voice and the ambient noise”), or using the Examiner’s alleged
construction (that the control signals merely need to represent,
as opposed to include, such a signal-to-noise ratio between the
target source voice and the ambient noise).
(Appeal Br. 20–21.)
The Examiner states that the DSS, and thus this claim
term, is construed as “simply a separator/process that utilizes
one or more control signals to separate both the target source
voice and ambient noise from a single composite SSA signal
into respective first and second mono audio signals.” There is
no mention in this construction of any particular aspect of the
instantaneous signal-to-noise-ratio between the target source
voice and the ambient noise.
(Id. at 19 (citation omitted).)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 8 depends from claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Kannappan
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hetherington, Mukund, Acero, and Kannappan for
similar reasons discussed previously respect to the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hetherington, Mukund, and Acero.

Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

17
§ 103 Rejection— Hetherington, Stokes III, and Acero
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hetherington, Stokes III, and Acero for similar reasons
discussed previously respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hetherington, Mukund, and Acero.

§ 103 Rejection—Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, and Kannappan
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hetherington, Stokes III, Acero, and Kannappan for
similar reasons discussed previously respect to the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hetherington, Mukund, and Acero.

Remaining § 103 Rejections
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 depend from independent claim 1. The
Examiner cited to various combinations of Hetherington, Mukund,
Stokes III, Matsuo, Kannappan, and Harville for teaching the additional
features of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. (Final Act. 33–41, 48–59, 65–76, 83–
91.) However, the Examiner’s application of these references does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Acero.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

18
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6, 8,
9
112, first
paragraph
Enablement 1, 3, 4, 6,
8, 9
1, 3, 4, 6, 8,
9
112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
1, 3, 4, 6,
8, 9
1, 3, 4, 6, 8,
9
112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 54, 56–59,
61, 62
1, 8 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero
1, 8
3, 4 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Stokes III
3, 4
3 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Matsuo
3
6 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Kannappan
6
9 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Harville
9
1, 6, 8 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Kannappan
1, 6, 8
3, 4 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Kannappan, Stokes
3, 4
Appeal 2020-001136
Application 14/660,689

19
3 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Kannappan,
Matsuo
3
9 103(a) Hetherington,
Mukund, Acero,
Kannappan,
Harville
9
1, 3, 4, 8 103(a) Hetherington,
Stokes III, Acero
1, 3, 4, 8
3 103(a) Hetherington,
Stokes III, Acero,
Matsuo
3
6 103(a) Hetherington,
Stokes III, Acero,
Kannappan
6
9 103(a) Hetherington,
Stokes III, Acero,
Harville
9
1, 3, 4, 6, 8 103(a) Hetherington,
Stokes III, Acero,
Kannappan
1, 3, 4, 6,
8
9 Hetherington,
Stokes III, Acero,
Kannappan,
Harville
9
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6,
8, 9

REVERSED