KENNEWICK, Michael Rye

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2021004073 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/631,772 02/25/2015 Mike KENNEWICK 62MV-218285 2282
133759 7590 12/02/2021
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
EXAMINER
HUANG, JAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
SheppardMullin_Pair@firsttofile.com
dmipdocketing@sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIKE KENNEWICK and LYNN ELISE ARMSTRONG
____________

Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3, 11, 14, 15, 17–19, 31–34, 36–38, and 40–51,
which constitute all claims before us for review.2 An oral hearing was held
on November 2, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “AI THINKTANK LLC.”
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4–10, 12, 13, 16, 20–30, 35, and 39 are canceled. Id. at 20–24,
Claims App.
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant’s “invention generally relates to providing a natural
language content dedication service in a voice services environment, and in
particular, to detecting multi-modal device interactions that include requests
to dedicate content, identifying the content requested for dedication from
natural language utterances included in the multi-modal device interactions,
processing transactions for the content requested for dedication, processing
natural language to customize the content for recipients of the dedications,
and delivering the customized content to the recipients of the dedications.”
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 17 are independent and recite substantially similar
subject matter. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system for providing a natural language content service in a voice
services environment, the system comprising:
a voice-enabled client device comprising one or more physical
processors programmed to execute computer program instructions
which, when executed, cause the one or more physical processors to:
receive a natural language utterance of a user;
responsive to receipt of the natural language utterance, perform
speech recognition on the natural language utterance, via an automatic
speech recognizer, to determine one or more words of the natural
language utterance;
obtain context information associated with the user;
determine, based on the one or more words of the natural
language utterance and the context information, an intent of the user
to obtain a copy of content playing on a separate device, wherein the
separate device is different from the voice-enabled client device;
identify the content playing on the separate device based on the
determined intent of the user; and;
obtain a copy of the identified content playing on the separate
device based on the determined intent of the user.
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

3
Rejections
Claims 1–3, 11, 14, 15, 17–19, 34, 37, 38, 40–44, 48, 50, and 51
are unpatentable over Freeman et al. (US 2008/0189110 A1, published
Aug. 7, 2008) (“Freeman”) and Kopra et al. (US 2008/0032622 A1,
published Feb. 7, 2008) (“Kopra”).
Claims 31–33 and 45–47 are unpatentable over Freeman,
Kopra, and Kondrk et al. (US 2010/0076778 A1, published Mar. 25,
2010).
Claims 36 and 49 are unpatentable over Freeman, Kopra, and
Schrock (US 2008/0010135 A1, published Jan. 10, 2008).

OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 17
Alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 17 as unpatentable over Freeman and Kopra, Appellant
submits that Freeman fails to teach or suggest at least the
following features of claim 1 (and the similar features of claim
17): [a] determine, based on the one or more words of the
natural language utterance and the context information, an
intent of the user to obtain a copy of content playing on a
separate device, wherein the separate device is different from
the voice-enabled client device; [b] identify the content playing
on the separate device based on the determined intent of the
user; and [c] obtain a copy of the identified content playing on
the separate device based on the determined intent of the user.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that “Freeman fails to teach or suggest any
of the claim elements [a]-[c] as they relate to content playing on a separate
device.” Id. at 11. The Examiner is unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

4
because “Kopra, not Freeman, is relied [upon] to teach content playing on a
separate device” (Ans. 3).
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because Freeman
explicitly discloses that “voice-based inputs may include multiple requests,
multi-modal requests, cross-device requests, cross application requests, or
other types of requests.” Freeman ¶ 26. Freeman explains that “[t]he
utterance may thus include multiple requests, including cross-device
requests (e.g., calculate a route using a navigation device, and make a
telephone call using a mobile device), as well as cross-application requests
(e.g., search for an address and/or phone number using a voice search
engine, and calculate a route using a navigation application).” Id. In fact,
the example cited by the Examiner in paragraph 37 of Freeman describes a
cross device request between a satellite radio player and the user’s mobile
phone. Thus, Appellant’s argument that “Freeman is only concerned with
identifying a song playing on its device” (Appeal Br. 11) is without merit.3
Relying on the example provided in paragraph 37 of Freeman,
Appellant next argues:
Freeman’s method is different, and involves two distinct
steps. In Freeman, the user issues a request for a song’s name to
the device in which the song is playing (i.e., a satellite radio
player) and, in response, the system identifies the song by name
and presents an ad with an offer to purchase a ringtone that
“corresponds to the song.” Then, the user may, in a second and
different request, accept the offer in the ad by purchasing and

3 During oral hearing, Appellant appears to have conceded this point: “I’m
not sure that we are necessarily disputing that there is a separate device or
that there’s a separation in Freeman of the device the user is using versus —
I’m sorry, no, we did say that. That’s not the — that’s not — really, I think
that’s not really the biggest issue with this rejection.” Tr. 7.
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

5
downloading the ringtone. Thus, even assuming arguendo that
Freeman’s ringtones and responses to a user’s requests can be
analogized to the claimed “content” and “determined intent” (as
Appellant understands the Examiner’s assertion) Freeman
discloses two separate communications, two separate
utterances, and two separate processing steps.
Appeal Br. 11–12. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Freeman discloses that “the utterance may include one or more
requests for performing an action, retrieving information, or various
combinations thereof.” Freeman ¶ 15. An utterance received in Freeman
may include a request for information and a command for performing an
action. Id. ¶ 26. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner
finds that the claimed utterance “can be interpreted as a set of phrases.”
Ans. 4. Based on the teachings of Freeman, a user may thus request
information about a song currently playing and also issue a command for
performing an action as part of the same utterance (e.g., What is this song;
I’ll buy that.).
In other words, after receiving that natural language utterance and
performing speech recognition to identify the requests, Freeman’s system
may output the requested information about the song and present an
advertisement that enables the user to purchase the song for a mobile phone
by interacting with the advertisement (e.g., clicking on the advertisement to
confirm purchase). Freeman ¶ 37, Fig. 3. The user’s interaction with the
advertisement in Freeman is akin to the claimed context information
associated with the user.4 See Spec. ¶¶ 31–35, 41, 46. In this example, the

4 Appellant acknowledged during the hearing that Freeman’s interaction
with an advertisement could be considered context information. See
Tr. 15–16.
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

6
intent of the user to obtain a copy of content playing is determined based on
the words of the natural language utterance and the context information.
Freeman indicates that “[p]rocessing may subsequently return to operation
325 to present output resulting from the interaction” in operation 335
(Freeman ¶ 37, Fig. 3), such as “information relating to an action based on
the request” (id. ¶ 29). The information outputted relating to the user’s
interaction with the advertisement identifies the content being purchased
based on the user’s utterance and context associated with the user (e.g.,
clicking a purchase button on the advertisement). “For example, the output
may include requested information, an indication of whether a requested task
was successfully completed, whether additional information is needed to
service the request (e.g., including a prompt for the information), or other
information relating to an action based on the request.” Id. Freeman
indicates that after the user’s interaction, which may include completing a
transaction for the content, the content is downloaded and obtained by the
mobile phone. Id. ¶ 37; see also Ans. 4. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded
by Appellant’s arguments which limit the teachings of Freeman strictly to
the example described in paragraph 37.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 2, 11, 14, 18, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 50
Regarding claims 2, 11, 14, 18, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 50, we agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 5–6) and are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments
(Appeal Br. 15–17) for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 11, 14, 18, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 50, which
depend from claims 1 and 17.
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

7
Dependent claims 31–33, and 45–47
Claims 31–33 and 45–47 relate to “the determination if a request
should be granted based on subscription terms (claims 31 and 45), the
determination if a predetermined number of content items has been obtained
or accessed (claims 32 and 46), and the determination if the terms specify
obtaining or accessing an unlimited number of content items (claims 33 and
47).” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues that paragraphs 5, 6, 26, 55, and 56
of Kondrk, on which the Examiner relies (see Final Act. 11–12), “teaches
the broad concept of subscription services, the cited paragraphs do not teach
or suggest any of the specific features of claims 31-33 and 45-47.” Appeal
Br. 18. The Examiner is unpersuaded because “Appellant merely provides a
conclusory statement that Kondrk fails to teach any of the specific features
of claims 31-33, 45-47 without providing supporting analysis or evidence.”
Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 55 of Kondrk, for example,
describes “the limited subscription entitles the purchaser to gain access to a
limited amount of user-specified media content available from the online
media store.” Appellant does nothing to call into question the specific
underlying factual findings made by the Examiner and the evidentiary
support cited therefor. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 31–33 and 45–47.
Dependent claims 36 and 49
“Appellant respectfully submits that rejected dependent claims 36
and 49 are allowable, at least by virtue of their dependency.” Appeal Br. 18.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claims 36 and
49, which depend from independent claims 1 and 17.
Appeal 2021-004073
Application 14/631,772

8
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 11, 14,
15, 17–19,
34, 37, 38,
40–44, 48,
50, 51
103(a) Freeman, Kopra 1–3, 11, 14,
15, 17–19,
34, 37, 38,
40–44, 48,
50, 51

31–33, 45–
47
103(a) Freeman, Kopra,
Kondrk
31–33,
45–47

36, 49 103(a) Freeman, Kopra,
Schrock
36, 49
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 11, 14,
15, 17–19,
31–34,
36–38, 40–51

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED