Ex Parte Waltermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14166197 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/166,197 01/28/2014
58127 7590 12/20/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rod D. Waltermann
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.
RPS920130175USNP(710.300) 5699
EXAMINER
PHAM, THIERRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODD. WAL TERMANN and MARK EV AN COHEN
Appeal2018-003455
Application 14/166, 197 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003455
Application 14/166, 197
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to using contextual information in
automated speech recognition. Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 3, 14--18; Fig. 3. Claim 1
is exemplary of the matter on appeal ( emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining, using a processor, contextual information relating to
an information handling device;
adjusting, before receipt of user speech input, using a
processor, an automated speech recognition engine using the
contextual information;
thereafter receiving, at an audio receiver of the information
handling device, user speech input; and
providing, using a processor, recognized speech based on the
user speech input received and the contextual information adjustment
to the automated speech recognition engine.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION2
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Farraro (US 2014/0324428 Al; pub. Oct. 30, 2014). Ans. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. To the extent Appellants have not
2 The Examiner's Answer removed Hendrickson et al. (US 2012/0296654
Al) as a reference, citing MPEP § I207.03(a). Ans. 5. The Final Action
had rejected claims 1-20 over Farraro and Hendrickson under 35 U.S.C
§ 103. Final Act. 2-5.
2
Appeal2018-003455
Application 14/166, 197
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Farraro and Hendrickson teaches claims 1-20. App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br.
12-16. According to Appellants, the Examiner concedes Farraro does not
teach that the automated speech recognition is adjusted before receiving the
user speech input and relies on Hendrickson for this teaching. See App. Br.
11; Reply Br. 13.
In the Answer, the Examiner relies solely on Farraro for the rejection
of claims 1-20 and asserts that the only remaining issue is does Farraro
teach or suggest adjusting an automated speech recognition engine before
receipt of user speech input? Ans. 2-9 (citing App. Br. 11).
In the Answer, regarding "adjusting before receipt of user speech
input," the Examiner relies on Farraro's teaching of adjusting a dictionary or
score using contextual information. Id. at 2 (citing Farraro, Abstract, ,r,r 12,
13,24--31).
The Examiner interprets claim 1 as requiring adjusting the speech
engine before a future use, but not requiring adjusting before receipt of any
user speech input. Id. at 5-6. The Examiner refers to Figure 3 of the
Specification and notes a situation in which a user requests information for a
first time and a second time (e.g., requesting directions). Id. at 6. In this
situation, the speech recognition is adjusted before the second time. Id. We
agree with the Examiner's interpretation as claim 1 recites "before receipt of
user speech input" and does not recite before "any" or "all" user speech
input. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
3
Appeal2018-003455
Application 14/166, 197
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applying this interpretation, the Examiner finds Farraro discloses that
ambient noise (contextual information) is input and a dictionary is modified
accordingly. Id. at 7 (citing Farraro ,r 27). The Examiner finds Ferraro
teaches that the dictionary modifications are maintained until the ambient
noise is discontinued and, "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would obviously
realize that the modifications to the dictionary in Farraro are maintained
while the ambient noise is present so that if the user makes another request
using speech input, the modified dictionary can be used." Id. Additionally,
the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the
modified dictionary can be used for subsequent speech input. Id.
The Examiner finds it would be useful to use the modified dictionary
for future speech input as it would increase processing speed, and provide a
quick response to the user because it does not require a step of modifying the
dictionary when no modification is necessary. Id. at 8 (citing Farraro ,r 27).
The Examiner additionally finds Ferraro teaches that bird-related
terms may be added to the dictionary based on ambient bird noise, this
would adjust the dictionary, and future speech input could use this adjusted
dictionary with the added bird related terms. Id. The Examiner finds
Farraro discloses the dictionary scores can be modified based on travel speed
or user location and there would be no need for further modification of the
dictionary if the travel speed or user location is the same. Id. at 9. The
Examiner then finds subsequent speech input would obviously use the
modified dictionary and score so as to give faster results by not having to re-
modify a dictionary or score that needs no modification. Id.
4
Appeal2018-003455
Application 14/166, 197
In the Reply Brief, Appellants repeat their arguments regarding the
combination of Farraro and Hendrickson, but do not address the Examiner's
rejection over solely Farraro. Reply Br. 5-16.
We agree with the Examiner's claim construction and, applying this
claim construction, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Farraro's
dictionary and score adjustment teach the disputed limitation, and Farraro
teaches the remaining limitations of claim 1. Additionally, we note
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's claim construction and findings in its
Reply Brief.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent
claims 11 and 20 as these claims are argued together with claim 1, and
dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 as these claims are not argued separately.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5