Ex Parte FengDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 201612782173 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation