Ex Parte Gusikhin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201612265359 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/265,359 11105/2008 28395 7590 03/10/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Oleg Yurievitch Gusikhin 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. 81175938 1995 EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLEG YURIEVITCH GUSIKHIN, PERRY ROBINSON MACNEILLE, ERICA KLAMPFL, KACIE ALANE THEISEN, DIMITAR PETROV FILEV, YIP AN CHEN, and BASA V ARAJ TONSHAL Appeal2013-007142 Application 12/265,359 Technology Center 3600 Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Oleg Yurievitch Gusikhin et. al (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the rejection of claims 1-5 and 14--20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2013-007142 Application 12/265,359 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed invention pertains to transforming input into data representing a simulated emotional state. Abstr. For example, in one embodiment, an emotional speech synthesizer combines avatar emotion and text intended for avatar speech into emotively tagged text. Spec. 39, 11. 13-16. Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An emotive text-to-speech system comprising: a computer configured to receive data representing a text stream; receive data representing a simulated emotion to be expressed by an audio output; selectively embed at least a portion of the data representing the simulated emotion in the data representing the text stream to form data representing an emotive text stream, the emotive text stream representing a spoken phrase having simulated emotional content; and output the data representing the emotive text stream for play by the audio output. 14. An emotive text-to-speech system comprising: a computer configured to receive data representing a stream of text; edit the data representing the stream of text with data representing emotional tags to form data representing a stream of emotively tagged text; and output the data representing the stream of emotively tagged text for playback, the stream of emotively tagged text representing a spoken phrase having simulated emotional content. 2 Appeal2013-007142 Application 12/265,359 THE REJECTION Before us for review is the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 14--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kubota (US 6,249,720 Bl, iss. June 19, 2001). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites "a computer configured to ... selectively embed at least a portion of the data representing the simulated emotion in the data representing the text stream to form data representing an emotive text stream." Appellants argue that Kubota does not teach embedding data representing simulated emotion in data representing a text stream. App. Br. 3--4. The Examiner finds that Kubota discloses, at column 8, lines 51-59, the embedding of emotion data. Final Act. 3; see also id. at 7. That portion of Kubota refers, inter alia, to the agent exhibiting slower movement and speech to express sleepiness, and speaking loudly while running to express cheerfulness. Kubota, col. 8, 11. 51-59. The Examiner maintains that speaking loudly or faster represents an emotional state, e.g., "being cheerful." Final Act. 7. While the relied-upon portion of Kubota discloses the expression of emotion, the Examiner has not explained adequately how that is performed through the embedding of emotion data into data representing a text stream as recited in claim 1. The Examiner also finds that Kubota discloses "tuning" the voice to achieve "various voice output patterns that the agent can speak to the user with (Figure 14 [Table 297] loud, placid, cool, respectful, kind, trembling, angry[,] reluctant, cheerful, voice output pattern)." Ans. 8 (citing Kubota, col. 1 7, 1. 62---col. 18, 1. 6). Kubota states: "The voice pattern select table 297 [of Figure 4] is to determine the voice output pattern for tuning of the agent's voice." Kubota, col. 17, 11. 62---63. The Examiner maintains that this tuning of the voice "clearly means that the text 3 Appeal2013-007142 Application 12/265,359 that is spoken by the agent is embedded (tuned) into that text." Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted); see also id. (maintaining that tuning the voice means the "voice output pattern will be embedded into the text stream."). However, the Examiner does not explain adequately why this is correct. The portion of Kubota cited by the Examiner does not provide an explanation of the action of tuning such that we can find that tuning necessarily includes or requires embedding. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not explained adequately how Kubota teaches selectively embedding at least a portion of the data representing the simulated emotion in the data representing the text stream to form data representing an emotive text stream. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims. However, independent claims 14 and 19, unlike independent claim 1, do not call for structure to "selectively embed" data. Claim 14 recites, with emphasis added, "a computer configured to ... edit the data representing the stream of text with data representing emotional tags to form data representing a stream of emotively tagged text." Claim 19 recites a "means for editing the data." Appellants fail to present arguments addressing the "edit" feature of claims 14 and 19, or challenging the Examiner's findings in that regard. See App. Br. 2--4 ( discussing only claim 1 and the "embed" feature); Reply Br. 2 (limiting the remarks to the "embed" feature). Accordingly, Appellants have not identified any error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 19 and the respective dependent claims as anticipated by Kubota. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14--20 is affirmed. 4 Appeal2013-007142 Application 12/265,359 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. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation