SIVANTOS PTE. LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2020

2019003884 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 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.
15/613,325 06/05/2017 ULRICH GIESE FDST-2014P18174C 1076
24131 7590 11/25/2020
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SUNITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2020 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):
docket@patentusa.com
office@patentusa.com
vrahimis@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRICH GIESE, SEBASTIAN PAPE,
MARKO LUGGER, and HOMAYOUN KAMKAR PARSI
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant1 requests reconsideration of our Decision (Aug.3, 2020) in
which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8–11, and 13.
Appellant requests rehearing because “the Board is believed to have
misapprehended or overlooked an essential point. In fact, as best
understood, the Decision appears to contain an undesignated new ground
of rejection.” Request for Rehearing 1 (“Request”). For the following
reasons, we deny Appellant’s Request.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sivantos Pte.
Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

2
In relevant part, claim 1 recites:
said signal processing unit processing the electrical audio signal
differently in two parallel signal processing paths to generate an
output signal of a first signal processing path and an output signal
of a second signal processing path and mixing the output signal
of the first signal processing path and the output signal of the
second signal processing path in dependence on recognizing the
wearer’s own voice to form the processed electrical audio signal.
Our decision referenced Lugger, Figure 2, reproduced below.

Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of a hearing apparatus.
Our Decision stated the following:
Referring to Figure 2 above, Lugger discloses that signals are
processed by processing facility 20, and that “analysis facilities
32 to 38 generate output signals in dependence on the wanted
signal of the microphone facility 18, which contain data and/or
speech activity of the hearing device wearer, i.e. speech activity
data 40, 42, 44, 46.” Lugger ¶¶ 30, 36. Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive because the claimed “signal processing unit
processing [an] electrical audio signal differently in two parallel
signal processing paths” reads on “processing facility 20,” the
output paths of the “analysis facilities 32 to 38” defining at least
first and second signal processing paths in which signals are
processed differently. Signals from these paths are then “mix[ed]
. . . in dependence on recognizing the wearer’s own voice to form
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

3
the processed electrical audio signal.” See Lugger ¶ 42. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s unrebutted analysis. See Ans. 4–
5.
Decision 5 (footnote omitted).
Appellant contends the portion of our Decision quoted above “cannot
be the entirety of the rejection because it disregards the follow-up recitation
that the processed electrical audio signal is converted into an acoustic
signal.” Request 2. As an initial matter, because we adopted the Examiner’s
findings and conclusion (Decision 3–4), our Decision addressed only the
portions of the rejection necessitated by the issues raised by Appellant’s
arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant’s contention that we disregarded that the processed
electrical audio signal is converted into an acoustic signal does not persuade
us of anything our Decision misapprehended or overlooked. The claimed
“processed electrical signal” reads on the output of Lugger’s processing
facility 20. This processed electrical signal is then converted into the
claimed acoustic signal by the receiver 22. Lugger, Fig. 2.
Appellant also contends our Decision is at odds with the Examiner’s
rejection because “the examiner did not mention the ‘mixing’ of the signals
D1 . . . D4. The examiner only suggested that the analysis causes the signal
processor 30 to set a given frequency response when the wearer’s own voice
is recognized.” Request 3. Appellant goes on to argue that both the
Examiner and our panel erred because “[t]he ‘mixing,’ as mentioned by the
Board would be the mixing of input signals D1 . . . D4 into the fusion
facility 48: The claims, instead, require that the input signals be mixed to
form a processed electrical audio signal which, in turn, is converted into an
acoustic signal.” Id. Appellant contends that “[t]he signals OVA and
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

4
OVNA from the fusion facility 48 to the processor 30, of course, are not
mixed. They simply indicate a Boolean alternative, namely, whether or not
the wearer’s own voice is being processed.” Id. at 4.
This line of argument also does not persuade us of anything our
Decision misapprehended or overlooked. Nor are we persuaded our
Decision differs from the Examiner’s rejection, thus amounting to an
undesignated new round of rejection.
First, Appellant does not explain persuasively why “mixing the output
signal of the first signal processing path and the output signal of the second
signal processing path in dependence on recognizing the wearer’s own
voice” does not read on the treatment of input signals D1 . . . D4 by the
fusion facility 48. See, e.g., Lugger ¶ 36 (“The speech activity data 40 to 46
is fused by a fusion facility 48 (FUS-fusion), in other words is combined
[i.e., mixed] to form a single signal, which indicates whether the voice of the
wearer is active (OVA-Own Voice Active) or whether it is not active
(OVNA-Own Voice not Active.” (emphasis added).).
Nor does Appellant persuasively explain how the OVA/OVNA signal
(i.e., the output of the mixing) is not operative in forming the processed
electrical audio signal. To the extent Appellant argues that the mixing of the
signals D1 . . . D4 by the fusion facility 48 is not operative in forming the
processed electrical audio signal because the intervening OVA/OVNA
signal is merely a Boolean signal, we remain unconvinced of anything our
Decision misapprehended or overlooked. Both 1) the mixing of the signals
D1 . . . D4 by the fusion facility 48; and 2) the operation of the OVA/OVNA
signal on the signal processor 30 to set a given frequency response when the
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

5
wearer’s own voice is recognized, are operative in forming the processed
electrical audio signal as required by the claim.
Finally, we are not persuaded that we misstated the Examiner’s
rejection (Request 3) because the Examiner “did not mention the ‘mixing’ of
the signals D1 . . . D4” but rather “only suggested that the analysis causes
the signal processor 30 to set a given frequency response when the wearer's
own voice is recognized.” Request 3. Appellant overlooks that the
Examiner was referring to the claim limitation that recites “mixing.”
Nevertheless, we stated that “the output paths of the ‘analysis
facilities 32 to 38’ defin[e] at least first and second signal processing paths
in which signals are processed differently” and “[s]ignals from these paths
are then ‘mix[ed] . . . in dependence on recognizing the wearer’s own voice
to form the processed electrical audio signal.’” Decision 5 (quoting Lugger
¶ 42). The Examiner found that “Luggar teaches Fusion facility 48 . . .
utilizes one voice recognition program acting on multiple parallel speech
activity data 40–46 processed in analysis facilities 31–38.” Ans. 5.
Appellant has not persuasively explained how, merely by the Examiner not
mentioning “mixing,” our Decision misstated the Examiner’s position when
the limitation in question recites “mixing.”
Appeal 2019-003884
Application 15/613,325

6
SUMMARY
Outcome of Decision on Request for Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s) Denied Granted
1, 2, 6, 8–11, 13 102 Lugger 1, 2, 6, 8–11, 13
3 103 Lugger, Hamacher 3
4, 5 103 Lugger, Ludvigsen 4, 5
Overall
Outcome:
1–6, 8–11, 13

DENIED