Ex Parte Feng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12782173 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121782, 173 05/18/2010 JinweiFENG
29855 7590 03/28/2016
Blank Rome LLP
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
199-0722US 4117
EXAMINER
717 Texas A venue, Suite 1400 LYTLE, JEFFREY P
Houston, TX 77002
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
mbrininger@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINWEI FENG 1
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-25. Claim 2 has been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Polycom, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to "[a] videoconferencing apparatus
[that] automatically tracks speakers in a room" and dynamically switches the
camera( s) to frame the detected speaker. Abstract. In a disclosed
embodiment, an audio-based locator uses a speech detector to detect speech
in captured audio and then determines a location of the current speaker.
Spec. i-f 45. A camera is then directed "toward that location." Spec. i-f 45.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. An automated videoconferencing method, comprising:
storing speech characteristics and source locations for
participants of a videoconference in an environment at a near-end;
associating personal information identifying the participants
with the stored speech characteristics;
determining a first speech characteristic of first audio indicative
of speech detected in the environment;
matching the first speech characteristic to one of the stored
speech characteristics;
directing a first camera at the stored source location for the
matching one of the stored speech characteristics;
obtaining the stored personal information associated with the
matching one of the stored speech characteristics;
incorporating the obtained personal information in first video
captured with the first camera; and
sending the first video with the incorporated personal
information to a far-end.
2
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
The Examiner ;s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 15-18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Agraharam et al. (US 6,377 ,995 B2;
Apr. 23, 2002) ("Agraharam"). Final Act. 3-13.
2. Claims 14, 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agraharam. Final Act. 13-16.
3. Claims 8, 10-13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agraharam and Gutta et al. (US
2002/0101505 Al; Aug. 1, 2002) ("Gutta"). Final Act. 16-22.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Agraharam discloses "storing
speech characteristics and source locations for participants of a
videoconference," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Agraharam discloses "directing
a first camera at the stored source location for the matching one of the stored
speech characteristics," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 1, 3-19, and 21-25
Appellant asserts, for multiple claims, the Examiner erred in finding
Agraharam discloses storing speech characteristics and source locations for
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
October 2, 2013 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed April 10, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on February 10, 2014 ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action mailed on December 7, 2012, from which this
Appeal is taken ("Final Act.").
3
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
participants of a videoconforence in an environment. App. Br. passim. In
particular, Appellant asserts:
1. Agraharam "fails to disclose that the actual locations of
participants in one environment are stored" (claim 1) (App.
Br. 7);
11. "nowhere does Agraharam teach that location of a participant in
an environment is determined so as to be stored with speech
characteristics of the participant" (claims 4, 16) (App. Br. 9,
11 );
111. Agraharam "does not deal with particular locations of
participants in an environment of a camera" (claim 7) (App.
Br. 9);
1v. "Agraharam fails to determine locations of participants and
store those locations with the participants' speech
characteristics" (claim 9) (App. Br. 10); and
v. Agraharam "fails to store a location of a speaker" (claim 20)
(App. Br. 12).
In response, the Examiner explains:
Agraharam discloses that each call participant at (i.e., in the
environment of) each location (e.g., participants Pl, P2, P3 and
P4 are at source location S 1; participants P5 and P6 are at the
source location S2; and participants P7 and P8 are at the source
location S3 in this example; see col. 3, lines 16-29 and Fig. 1 of
Agraharam) must first register a speech sample so that a voice
model and spectral information from the participant's voice
(e.g., Speaker ID Model Vo-102) are stored in the database 23
in association with the Participant's location (e.g., Source
Location Sl-S3) and the Participant's name or index/ID (e.g.,
Participant Pl-P8); see col. 5, line 55 to col. 6, line 2; col. 8,
lines 52-65; and Figs. 1, 2 and 9 of Agraharam)).
Ans. 4--5.
We agree with the Examiner. As shown in Figure 1 of Agraharam,
Agraharam discloses a multimedia conference call (i.e., videoconference)
wherein there are eight different participants (Pl-P8) variously situated
among three different locations (Sl-S3). See Agraharam, col. 3, 11. 16-29,
4
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
Fig. 1. Connected as part of the multicast network of Figure 1 is an index
server (20) further comprising a database (23). Agraharam, col. 3, 11. 48-51,
col. 4, 11. 5---6. "The database 23 is used to store ... certain information
related to the sources and to the participants in the multimedia
communications." Agraharam, col. 4, 11. 20-23. Agraharam further
discloses, in addition to using facial recognition, speech recognition based
on spectral information of the participant is used to identify participants.
Agraharam, col. 5, 11. 55---60; see also Agraharam, col. 6, 11. 11-14 ("this
invention can locate an individual to a particular source, such as source Sl,
based on source address and in addition, applies speech and face
recognition"). This spectral information (i.e., speech characteristics), inter
alia, is stored in the database. Agraharam, col. 4, 11. 20-23. Figure 9 of
Agraharam is illustrative and is reproduced below:
FIG. 9
SPEAKER ID MODEL VIDEO MODEL . . . SOURCE PARTICIPANT
/
Vo-102 Vi-356 . . ' 51 Pt
_ ........................... ----1r- '''''''''"'"'
...
Figure 9 of Agraharam illustrates an index table comprising a database.
Agraharam, col. 8, 11. 52-65. As shown, information including a Speaker ID
Model associated with a Source/Location S 1 and a Participant P 1. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Agraharam discloses "storing speech
5
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
characteristics and source locations for participants of a videoconforence in
an environment at a near-end," as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, Appellant argues Agraharam does not disclose the
"directing a first camera" limitation. App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant
asserts "[ d]irecting a camera at an audio source being detected as in
Agraharam is not the same as directing a camera at a stored location
determined from a matching speech characteristic." Id. Further, Appellant
contends, because Agraharam does not store locations of participants, it
follows that Agraharam does not disclose directing a camera at such a stored
location on the basis of matching speech characteristics being detected.
Reply Br. 5.
As discussed supra, we disagree with Appellant's premise that
Agraharam fails to disclose storing the location of participants. Further, we
are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Agraharam discloses a voice-activated video camera that can slew, or
rotate, to capture the image of the speaker. Ans. 5 (citing Agraharam, col. 5,
11. 2-10, Fig. 4 ).
Further, the Examiner notes the "directing a first camera at the stored
source location for the matching one of the stored speech characteristics"
limitation "reads on any person, at the same source location that matches the
speech characteristics, pulling a camera phone from his pocket and pointing
it to take a picture of anything at the location in any desired direction."
Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant responds that the limitation, when read in context of the rest
of the claim language, is clear and that the additional clarifying language
provided by Appellant in the Reply Brief "is implied and understood."
6
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
Reply Br. 3--4 ("the first camera is naturally in the environment at the near-
end because it is directed at the stored source location in the environment at
the near-end.").
Thus, under the Examiner's reading of the limitation, a first camera is
located at the stored source location for the matching one of the stored
speech characteristics and need only be directed to be practiced. On the
other hand, under the Appellant's interpretation, a first camera is directed
toward a stored source location for the matching one of the stored speech
characteristics. 3
"[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim
language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification."
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
quoting In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Reading a claim in
light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in
the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the
specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by
implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the
claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05, (CCPA 1969). Although the
claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
3 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider
whether the limitation meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential) (if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim
constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring an applicant to more
precisely define the metes and bounds of the invention by holding the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite).
7
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, even under
Appellant's reading of the limitation, we find Agraharam's camera discloses
the claimed limitation. As set forth in the Specification, the camera may be
directed "to the speaker's coordinates or direction." Spec. i-f 166. This
location may be the pan, tilt, zoom coordinates for the camera. Spec. i-f 72.
Thus, in order to direct a first camera toward a stored location of a speaker
associated with stored speech characteristics matching detected speech
characteristics, camera control information (i.e., pan, tilt, zoom coordinates)
corresponding to the stored location of the speaker is required. We find
Agraharam's camera, in order to capture the image of the speaker, would be
directed to the speaker's location (i.e., the stored source location). See
Agraharam, col. 5, 11. 8-10. Further, contrary to Appellant's assertion, the
claim language does not preclude Agraharam' s voice-activated camera that
allows the camera to slew, or rotate, to capture the image of the speaker.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. For
similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-19 and 21-
25, for which Appellant either advances similar arguments or which were
not argued separately. App. Br. 9-12.
Claim 20
Appellant advances similar arguments directed to the teachings of
Agraharam--specifically that Agraharam fails to disclose storing a location
of a participant in the environment and failing to disclose directing a camera
in the environment at the stored location of the participant based on a
matched speech characteristic of audio in that environment. App. Br. 12.
8
Appeal 2014-005811
Application 12/782, 173
For similar reasons to those discussed supra, we find Appellant's arguments
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant additionally asserts Gutta "fails to store a location of a
speaker and direct the camera at the stored location based on matched
speech characteristics." App. Br. 12. The Examiner relies on Gutta as
teaching "at least one camera being controllable to pan, tilt, and zoom," as
recited in claim 20. Final Act. 22 (citing Gutta i-fi-123, 24, and 58, Fig. 1).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because
they are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection and are not
commensurate in scope to the language of claim 20. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-25.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9