Ex Parte Raniwala

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14127047 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/127,047 12/17/2013
31817 7590 07/01/2019
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sundeep Raniwala
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.
127079-193711
(P55403US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6434
EXAMINER
PATEL, SHREYANS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelparalegal@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNDEEP RANIW ALA
Appeal2018-007637
Application 14/127,047
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and LINZY T.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 26, 28-35, 37--44, and 46--49. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention pertains to perceptual computing and,
specifically, determines whether a user of a computing device is speaking
based on mouth movements detected through images captured by a camera.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2018/007637
Application 14/127,047
As a result of this determination, a microphone can be muted or unmuted.
See generally Abstract. Claim 26 is illustrative:
26. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing
instructions, which, when executed by a processor of a computing
device, cause the computing device to:
receive a plurality of images;
process the plurality of images;
determine whether a user of the computing device is speaking
based, at least in part, on mouth movements of the user detected
through results of the processing of the images, wherein the results
of the processing include at least a rate of change of a distance
between an upper and a lower lip, above or below a predetermined
rate; and
mute or unmute a microphone based on the determination.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 26, 28-35, 37--44, and 46--49 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Basu (US 2003/0018475 Al; published
Jan. 23, 2003) and Masaki Aoki et al., Voice Activity Detection By Lip Shape
Tracking Using EBGM, ACM, MM '07 561---64 (Sept. 2007) ("Aoki"). Ans.
2-13. 2,3
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claim 26, the Examiner finds that Basu
discloses (1) processing received images; (2) determining whether a user of
2 Although every page of the Examiner's Answer is labeled as "Page 1," we
nonetheless refer to the Answer's pages in the order that they appear in the
record.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 30,
2018 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed May 17, 2018
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 17, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal 2018/007637
Application 14/127,047
a computing device is speaking based at least partly on mouth movements
that are detected through the processed image results; and (3) muting or
unmuting a microphone based on the determination. Ans. 3. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that Basu' s image processing results do not include
a rate of change of a distance between an upper and lower lip that is above
or below a predetermined rate, the Examiner cites Aoki as teaching this
feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3--4.
Appellant argues that Aoki does not use a rate of change of lip height
to determine whether a person in an image is speaking as claimed, but rather
uses changes in aspect ratio, namely lip height divided by lip width, to make
that determination. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2---6. According to Appellant,
Aoki' s aspect ratio-based determination yields drastically different results
than a determination that is based on the rate of change of a distance
between an upper and lower lip as claimed. App. Br. 7-8.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 by finding
that Basu and Aoki collectively would have taught or suggested determining
whether, by processing received images, a computing device user is
speaking based on a rate of change of a distance between the person's upper
and lower lip that is above or below a predetermined rate?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on the primary
reference to Basu is undisputed, as is the cited references' combinability.
Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner's reliance
3
Appeal 2018/007637
Application 14/127,047
on Aoki for teaching the recited determination being based on the rate of
change of a distance between the user's upper and lower lip. Therefore, we
confine our discussion to Aoki.
Aoki detects a speaker's voice activity by determining whether the
change of speaker's lip aspect ratio, namely lip height divided by lip width,
between consecutive frames exceeds a threshold. Aoki§ 3.5. This
determination is based on the assumption that lip aspect ratio changes
frequently as the human lip moves in utterance as compared to non-utterance
as shown in Aoki's Figure 4.
Because lip aspect ratio is determined by dividing lip height by lip
width as shown in Aoki' s Equation 9, this determination at least
encompasses scenarios where aspect ratio changes are based solely on
changes in distance between an upper and lower lip over time, namely when
the lip height changes, but the lip width remains constant. That is, Aoki at
least suggests some scenarios when the only the numerator of Equation 9
changes, namely the lip height, but the lip width denominator remains
constant.
In these scenarios, then, the aspect ratio would be determined solely
on the distance between an upper and lower lip. Therefore, the rate of
change of this aspect ratio----a derivative at least suggested by the frequent
aspect ratio changes over time as shown in Aoki's Figure 4 and described in
Section 3 .5-would likewise be based on a rate of change of the upper-to-
lower lip distance. Moreover, Aoki at least suggests comparing this rate of
change to a threshold to determine whether the user is speaking. See Aoki
§ 3.5.
4
Appeal 2018/007637
Application 14/127,047
To be sure, there are other scenarios where an aspect ratio can change
when only the lip's width changes, and not its height, as Appellant indicates.
See App. Br. 7-8. As Appellant explains, these scenarios can occur when
the upper and lower lip remain stationary, but the lips' width changes when,
for example, widening or narrowing a smile. Id.
But nothing in the claim precludes other scenarios where the lips'
width remains stationary, but their height changes when, for example, a
speaker (or singer) moves his or her jaws vertically such that they are farther
apart (or closer together) when articulating sounds. Because the lip width
remains relatively constant in these scenarios, the lip aspect ratio changes
solely due to the change in the upper-to-lower lip distance. To the extent
that Appellant contends that Aoki somehow excludes these scenarios, there
is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. In
short, Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim that does not preclude at least some scenarios where a rate of change
in lip aspect ratio is based solely on the rate of change in upper-to-lower lip
distance as claimed.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 26, and claims 28-35, 37--44, and 46--49 not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 26, 28-35, 37--44, and
46--49 under § 103.
5
Appeal 2018/007637
Application 14/127,047
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 26, 28-35, 37--44,
and 46--49.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6