TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATEDDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 20202019002226 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/234,375 08/11/2016 Bozhao Tan TI-74304A 7823 23494 7590 05/13/2020 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZGONZALE, LENNIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2020 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BOZHAO TAN Appeal 2019-002226 Application 15/234,375 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13.2 See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas Instruments Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1. 2 In an Amendment After Final filed May 11, 2018, Appellant cancelled claims 4–6, 8, 10–12, and 14–18, and the Amendment was entered by the Examiner in the Advisory Action dated May 30, 2018. Appeal 2019-002226 Application 15/234,375 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods for training and operating a speaker dependent sound recognition sensor. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for training a speaker dependent sound recognition sensor, the method comprising: receiving an analog signal that contains a command sound spoken by a user of the sound recognition sensor; extracting sparse sound parameter information from the analog signal using an analog portion of the sound recognition sensor to form a user dependent sound vector representing an entire word or multiword phrase; and storing the speaker dependent sound vector in a sound signature database coupled to the sound recognition sensor, whereby the user dependent sound vector is provided to the sound recognition sensor. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Parthasarathy US 5,913,192 June 15, 1999 Rajasekaran US 4,780,906 Oct. 25, 1988 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE ON APPEAL Claims 1–2, 7, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parthasarathy and Rajasekaran. Final Act. 3.3 3 Because Appellant has cancelled claims 4–6, 8, 10–12, and 14–18 after the Final Rejection and the Amendment was entered by the Examiner, we address only those claims currently pending in this appeal, i.e., claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13. See Appeal Br. 13–15. Appeal 2019-002226 Application 15/234,375 3 OPINION We begin by noting that Parthasarathy is directed to speaker identification using speech recognition. See Parthasarathy, Abstract, 3:35– 45, 4:35–53. Rajasekaran is directed to word recognition. See Rajasekaran, Abstract. The Examiner finds Parthasarathy teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, findings which Appellant does not dispute in the briefs. Final Act. 3–5; Appeal Br. 4–11. The Examiner relies on Rajasekaran to teach extracting sound parameter information from an analog signal using an analog portion of the sound recognition sensor, a finding which Appellant also does not dispute. Id. Appellant argues that “the Examiner has provided nothing more than conclusory allegations, without citing documentary evidence of record to affirmatively prove that a person having ordinary skill in the art” would have been motivated to combine Rajasekaran and Parthasarathy. Appeal Br. 4, 7. In particular, Appellant argues that “[i]n deciding obviousness and motivation to combine, MPEP § 2142 requires that knowledge of Appellant's disclosure must be put aside, yet the Examiner's alleged motivation for combining Parthasarathy and Rajasekaran seems based upon Appellant’s own disclosure.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner concludes: it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Parthasarathy '192 to include the limitations as taught by Rajasekaran '906 because a low pass filter with a corner frequency of 6.25 KHz to reject out of band signals may be employed in conjunction with an analog differentiator, wherein the differentiator effectively emphasizes the high frequency components in the input analog speech signal (column 5, line 65 through column 6, line 2), Appeal 2019-002226 Application 15/234,375 4 thus making the use of an analog portion to extract sound a more desirable and effective tool. Final Act. 4, 5. The Examiner explains that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Parthasarathy to include extracting an analog sound parameter extracting form instead of a digital sound parameter, because by using the extraction for the analog speech signal, a better characteristic of the samples of the individual words can be obtained “for performing a better speech processing and effectively analyzing the signal.” Id. at 2, 3. “Thus, with this it is clear that the use of an analog portion to extract a sound would be more desirable and a more effective tool in the extraction or sound.” Ans. 4, 5. “The examiner has used the prior art teachings to form a motivation to combine,” “therefore the allegations of using applicant’s own disclosure are believed to not be founded.” Id. Upon review of the record, we do not discern a reliance on Appellant’s own disclosure as a reason provided by the Examiner for combining the references, contrary to Appellant’s argument. However, on this record, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, we agree with Appellant that on this record, the Examiner concludes that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Parthasarathy and Rajasekaran because of Rajasekaran’s “low pass filter with a corner frequency of 6.25 KHz to reject out of band signals” that may be used in conjunction with an analog differentiator. Ans. 3–4; Final Act 4–5. This conclusion is not sufficiently explained on this record as it relates to the claimed invention. Appeal 2019-002226 Application 15/234,375 5 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under § 103. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 7 and 13 or dependent claims 2, 3, and 9 under § 103. CONCLUSION We reverse the rejection of claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome: 103 Parthasarathy, Rajasekaran 1–3, 7, 9, 13 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation