Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog

Intellectual Property Law

: Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog

BPAI Informative Opinion Addresses "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation"

By Peter Zura

Ex Parte Givens, Appeal 2009-003414 (BPAI, August 6, 2009)

While the application was decided over a year ago, the USPTO has decided to publish the decision as an informative opinion, presumably as an attempt to push back on the practice of applying a "broadest reasonable interpretation" too liberally.

The issue in this case is straightforward.  Appellant filed an application on a method and apparatus for reducing noise associated with acoustic sensor outputs.  During examination, the claims were rejected under § 102(e) over the Lin reference.

While the Appellant argued that Lin did not disclose a "sub-band spectral subtractive routine," the Examiner countered that Appellant did not provide a specific definition of ?sub-band spectral subtractive routine? and thus, giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation, included any adaptive filter.

The BPAI quickly shot down this reasoning:

We cannot agree [with the Examiner].  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 . . . 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 . . . 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.

Read/download the opinion here (link)

Full post as published by Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog on August 17, 2010 (boomark / email).