Ex parte Givens

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MAURICE GIVENS
____________
Appeal 2009-003414
Application 11/265,973
Technology Center 2800
____________
Decided: August 6, 2009
____________
Before JOHN C. MARTIN, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-003414
Application 11/265,973
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a method and apparatus for reducing
noise associated with acoustic sensor outputs (Spec. ¶[0001]). Appellant’s
invention uses a sub-band spectral subtraction mechanism to process a noise
cancellation mechanism output signal, producing a reduced noise acoustic
data signal (Spec. ¶[0007]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for sensor output signal noise reduction comprising the
steps of:
introducing at least one sensor output signal into an LMS-based
adaptive noise canceller, producing a noise canceller output signal;
and
introducing said noise canceller output signal into a sub-band
spectral subtractive routine external to said LMS-based adaptive
noise canceller, producing a reduced noise signal.
REFERENCE
Lin 	US 2007/0090980 A1 	Apr. 26, 2007
(filed Oct. 21, 2005)
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
upon the teachings of Lin.
The only contention is whether Lin teaches a sub-band spectral
subtractive routine external to an LMS-based adaptive filter (App. Br. 7-9;
Reply Br. 16-17; Ans. 11-12).

Appeal 2009-003414
Application 11/265,973
3
The Examiner finds that Lin teaches an LMS adaptive noise canceller
1412 that includes a sub-band spectral subtraction routine 1410 (Ans. 13).
The Examiner further finds that Appellant has not provided a specific
definition of “sub-band spectral subtractive routine” and thus, giving the
term its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term can include any adaptive
filter (Ans. 12). We cannot agree.
Appellant’s Specification explains that “sub-band spectral subtraction
algorithms are . . . known to those skilled in the art” in paragraph [0023],
sets forth the sub-band spectral subtractive mechanism in paragraph [0032],
and also sets forth the function that implements the sub-band spectral noise-
reduction algorithm (Appendix-Spec: 21-22). Although Appellant’s
Specification does not specifically define the term “sub-band spectral
subtractive routine,” this is a specific claim term for a specific type of
filtering (Spec. ¶[0032]). Any interpretation that fails to give weight to
“sub-band,” “spectral,” “subtractive,” and “routine” deprives the words in
this claim term of their normal meaning. Thus, the “sub-band spectral
subtractive routine” does not include just any adaptive filter, but rather refers
to a specific filtering routine. Further, the output from Lin’s LMS based
adaption circuit is fed to a summer 1124, 1224 (Lin Fig. 14), not a sub-band
spectral subtractive routine. A summer is an additive circuit and not a
subtractive circuit. Also, Lin does not describe the summer as operating on
a sub-band. Thus, because Lin does not disclose each and every element of
Appellant’s invention, Lin does not anticipate claims 1-15. RCA Corp. v.
Appl. Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Appeal 2009-003414
Application 11/265,973
4
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
ke
MARK E. FEJER
GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
1700 SOUTH MOUNT PROSPECT ROAD
DES PLAINES IL 60018