13284971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)

Yassa, Fathy

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 2020

13284971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)

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. 13/284,971 10/30/2011 Fathy Yassa A213281 1249 23373 7590 03/02/2020 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER COLUCCI, MICHAEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2020 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com sughrue@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FATHY YASSA ____________ Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,9711 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19. Appeal Br. 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 An Oral Hearing was held February 12, 2020. A Transcript will be made available in due course. 2 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 Speech Morphing Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 2 We reverse.3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Related Appeals. A separate Panel of the Board REVERSED the rejection of claims 1– 20 in Appeal 2018-006346 (Application 13/284,973) mailed May 29, 2019 (“prior Decision”). The ’973 application, and the present application, each claim priority to Provisional 61/408,634, filed October 31, 2010. The ’973 application issued November 5, 2019, as US 10,467,348. Invention. The claims relate to a networked communications system comprising an automatic speech recognizer. See Spec., Abstract. Claims. Claims 1, 9, 17, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of representative claim 14 which is reproduced below with some formatting added and a disputed limitation highlighted: 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 7, 2018, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed May 29, 2018, “Reply. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed March 28, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed June 7, 2017, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed October 30, 2011, “Spec.”) for their respective details. 4 Appellant designates claim 1 as representative. See Appeal Br. 22–24. Therefore, we decide this Appeal on the basis of representative claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 3 1. A communication system comprising: an automatic speech recognizer configured to receive a speech signal of a speaker in a first language and to convert said speech signal into a text sequence in the first language; a speech analyzer configured to receive said speech signal, said speech analyzer configured to extract all paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language from said speech signal; a translator coupled with said automatic speech recognizer, said translator configured to convert said text sequence from the first language to a second language; and a speech output device coupled with said automatic speech recognizer and said speech analyzer, said speech output device comprising a look-up table of paralinguistic characteristics mapping between the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in a second language, and said speech output device configured to transform all of the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second language based on the mapping between the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second language of the look-up table of paralinguistic characteristics and convert said translated text sequence in the second language into an output speech signal in the second language based on said paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second language, wherein the transformation of all the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second language comprises transforming at least one paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the first Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 4 language imparting a connotation in the first language to a first word in the speech signal in the first language to at least one corresponding paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the second language imparting the connotation in the second language to a second word of the speech signal in the second language, the second word in the second language being a translation of the first word in the first language, wherein said paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language comprises at least one of a first pitch of the speech signal in the first language, a first amplitude of the speech signal in the first language, and a first rate of speech of the speech signal in the first language, and wherein said paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second language comprises at least one of a second pitch of the speech signal in the second language, a second amplitude of the speech signal in the second language, and a second rate of speech of the speech signal in the second language. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS References.5 Name Publication Number Date Duan US 6,223,150 B1 Apr. 24, 2001 Endo US 7,228,275 B1 June 5, 2007 Kumaran US 7,877,251 B2 Jan. 25, 2011 (Filed May 7, 2007) Subramanian US 2007/0208569 A1 Sept. 6, 2007 Xu US 2009/0055158 A1 Feb. 26, 2009 5 The identical reference set was applied against the ’973 Application. Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 5 Rejections.6 The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1–3, 8–11, and 16–197 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duan, Xu, and Subramanian. Final Act. 9–16. 2. Claims 4–6 and 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duan, Xu, Subramanian, and Endo. Final Act. 16–17. 3. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duan, Xu, Subramanian, Endo, and Kumaran. Final Act. 18. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–19 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 13–24; and in the Reply Brief, pages 4–9. 6 The Application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Final Act. 2. 7 The Rejection recites, inter alia, “and 16–20.” Because there is no claim 20 pending, we take the Examiner to mean “16–19” and find the recitation “20” to be harmless error. Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 6 CLAIMS 1–19: OBVIOUSNESS OVER DUAN, XU, SUBRAMANIAN, ENDO, AND KUMARAN. Connotation. Claim 1 recites, inter alia: wherein the transformation of all the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second language comprises transforming at least one paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the first language imparting a connotation in the first language to a first word in the speech signal in the first language to at least one corresponding paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the second language imparting the connotation in the second language to a second word of the speech signal in the second language, the second word in the second language being a translation of the first word in the first language. The Examiner finds the Duan-Xu combination fails to teach where the paralinguistic correlation imparts connotation information. Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds Subramanian teaches “emotional adjustment” during language translation with emotion-to-emotion transformation and inserting emotion in new portions of audio output where it is expected in cultural differences. Id. at 13–14 (citing Subramanian ¶¶ 13, 14). Appellant contends neither Duan, Xu, nor Subramanian teach that speech at a first pitch in a first language might have connotation different from speech at a second pitch in a second language, and thus the references do not contemplate the transformation therebetween. Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner finds the “[g]eneral transformation of 1st to 2nd paralinguistic information was merely described in the claims (read upon by Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 7 Xu) until the specificity of ‘connotation’ (read upon by Subramanian).” Ans. 19. The Examiner finds “Xu teaches the transformation and mapping of first to second paralinguistic(s)[, but] does not necessarily teach imparting connotation per se across languages.” Id. The Examiner further finds “in lieu of official notice and specific to ‘connotation’ per se, Subramanian was introduced and while translating across language, uses not only general translation and transformation with markup but specific emotional context.” Id. (quoting Subramanian, Abstract) (“Emotion across voice and text communication channels are abstracted, preserved and translated.”). The Examiner specifically finds: “Subramanian expressly teaches the transformation of a first speech with emotional context in a first language to a second language with emotional context.” Ans. 20. Appellant contends the claims recite “transforming at least one paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the first language imparting a connotation . . . to at least one corresponding paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the second language imparting the connotation.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that Subramanian merely recognizes emotions for the purpose of adjusting “tone, camber, and frequency.” Id. (citing Subramanian ¶ 75). Appellant does not indicate a definition for the term “connotation” in the Specification, nor does Appellant argue that “connotation” should be construed to be a term of art in an industry relevant to the claims. Nor does the Examiner define the term “connotation” or indicate that it is a Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 8 specialized term of art. We, therefore, find a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult a generalist dictionary to define the term “connotation.” Connotation is defined as “the suggesting of a meaning of a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (2005).8 Thus, we find the “connotation” of a term implies a secondary meaning beyond its explicit denotation. Subramanian discloses: “The translated emotion metadata is used to emotion mine words that have an emotion connotation in the culture of the second language. Those words are then substituted for corresponding words in the translated text.” Subramanian, Abstract (cited by the Examiner). Thus, Subramanian teaches finding a word conveying an equivalent emotion, but does not teach “suggesting of a meaning of a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes.” Independent claims 9, 18, and 19 contain commensurate recitations. Appellant contends claims 4–7 and 12–17 are patentable by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 9. Appeal Br. 23–24. The Examiner’s Answer does not make separate findings for the dependent claims. See Ans. 29–30. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1–19. 8 The Oxford English Dictionary. (a) The signifying in addition; inclusion of something in the meaning of a word besides what it primarily denotes; implication. Oxford English Dictionary. (b) That which is implied in a word in addition to its essential or primary meaning. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39386?redirectedFrom=connotation#eid. Appeal 2018-006227 Application 13/284,971 9 CONCLUSION9 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 8–11, 16–19 103 Duan, Xu, Subramanian 1–3, 8–11, 16–19 4–6, 12–14 103 Duan, Xu, Subramanian, Endo 4–6, 12–14 7, 15 103 Duan, Xu, Subramanian, Endo, Kumaran 7, 15 Overall Outcome 1–19 REVERSED 9 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).