Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2021

2020000891 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 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.
15/637,658 06/29/2017 Marko Bundalo P39778-US 5089
136714 7590 07/13/2021
Pierce Atwood LLP (Attn: Amazon Docketing)
Attn: Patent Docketing (Amazon)
100 Summer Street
Suite 2250
Boston, MA 02110
EXAMINER
ORTIZ SANCHEZ, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2021 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):
patent@pierceatwood.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________ 

Ex parte MARKO BUNDALO, DIBYENDU NANDY, and
BHUPAL KANAIYALAL DHARIA
________________

Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–5, 7–11, and 13–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

INVENTION

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Amazon Technologies, Inc. is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 6 and 12 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 27–28.
Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658

2
The invention relates to conserving power for a portable electronic
device that monitors local audio for a wakeword. Abstract. Claim 5 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with emphases denoting
the disputed limitations:
5. An electronic device comprising:
a microphone operable to receive an audio input;
a first circuit that utilizes less power to operate while
active than power to operate the electronic device, the first
circuit comprising:
a voice activity detector operable to:
receive the audio input;
analyze the audio input to determine that a digital
representation of spoken words are present in the audio input;
and
output a first signal in response to determining that the
digital representation of spoken words are present in the audio
input; and
a second circuit that utilizes more power than the first
circuit but less than the power to operate the electronic device,
and that operates in standby mode until it receives an interrupt
signal, the second circuit comprising:
an activation circuit that activates the second circuit in
response to receiving the first signal from the first circuit;
a wakeword detection circuit operable to:
receive the audio input from the first circuit; and
analyze the audio input to determine that a digital
representation of a wakeword is present in the audio input.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658

3
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, 9–11, 13, and 16–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Basye (US
2014/0163978 A1; published June 12, 2014) and Dadu (US 2015/0245154
A1; published Aug. 27, 2015). Final Act. 3–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Basye, Dadu, and Jay G.
Wilpon, Automatic Recognition of Keywords in Unconstrained Speech
Using Hidden Markov Models, IEEE, Vol. 38. No. 11, November (1990).
(“Wilpon”).4 Final Act. 11–14.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Basye does not teach a second circuit utilizing
more power than a first circuit but less power to operate the electronic
device. Final Act. 5. Moreover, the Examiner finds Dadu teaches different
wake phrases cause a computing device to transition from a low-power state
to a high performance active state, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation
a second circuit that utilizes more power than the first circuit but
less than the power to operate the electronic device, and that
operates in standby mode until it receives an interrupt signal, the
second circuit comprising: an activation circuit that activates the
second circuit in response to receiving the first signal from the
first circuit; a wakeword detection circuit

3 The rejection of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was withdrawn. Ans.
14.
4 The Examiner refers to this rejection as Bayse, Wilpon, and Dadu. Final
Act. 11. However, because these dependent claims depend from claims 5
and 11, we interpret this as a typographical error and refer to this rejection as
Basye, Dadu, and Wilpon.
Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658

4
recited in claim 5 (and similarly recited in claim 11). Id. (citing Dadu ¶ 19).
In addition, the Examiner finds that Dadu teaches separate modules may be
combined into a single module, and single modules may be split into
multiple modules; and the Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have arranged Dadu’s
device in many different combinations such as in two separate circuits for
signal recognition, a single circuit, etc. Ans. 15 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 32–34,
Figs. 1, 2).
Appellant argues Dadu merely teaches different wake phrases causing
the device to transition from a low power first circuit to different active
states, the transition occurring after operation of a wake phrase detection
component. Appeal Br. 18–20; Reply Br. 2–4 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 14, 19, 25,
Figs. 1–2). In response to the Examiner’s additional findings in the Answer,
Appellant argues simply combining or splitting modules is not the same as
some modules being included in a first circuit and a wakeword detection
module being included in a second circuit that utilizes more power than the
first circuit but less power than the electronic device, and furthermore where
the second circuit is activated by a signal from the first circuit. Compare
Reply Br. 4–5, with Ans. 15 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 32–34, Figs. 1, 2). We agree
with Appellant.
As an initial matter, Dadu’s low power first circuit (rather than a
second circuit that utilizes more power than the first circuit) includes a wake
phrase detection component, which is why the transition to different active
states occurs after operation of a wake phrase detection component. Appeal
Br. 18–20; Reply Br. 2–4 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 14, 19, 25, Figs. 1–2).
Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658

5
The Examiner cites to Figure 1 of Dadu (Ans. 15 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 32–
34, Figs. 1, 2)), which we reproduce below.

Dadu’s Figure 1 illustrates that low power engine 112 includes wake
phrase recognition module 142. Furthermore, the Examiner cites to Figure 2
of Dadu (Ans. 15 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 32–34, Figs. 1, 2)), which we reproduce
below.
Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658

6

Dadu’s Figure 2 also illustrates that low-power engine 112 includes
wake phrase recognition module 142.
However, claim 5 recites “a second circuit that utilizes more power
than the first circuit . . . the second circuit comprising . . . a wakeword
detection circuit.” Therefore, Dadu’s Figure 1 shows that a first lower
powered circuit (rather than a second circuit utilizing more power) includes
a wakeword detection circuit, which fails to teach the limitation “a second
circuit that utilizes more power than the first circuit . . . the second circuit
comprising . . . a wakeword detection circuit,” recited in claim 5 (claim 12
recites similar features).
The Examiner’s conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have arranged Dadu’s device in many
different combinations such as in two separate circuits for signal recognition,
Appeal 2020-000891
Application 15/637,658

7
a single circuit, etc. (Ans. 15 (citing Dadu ¶¶ 32–34, Figs. 1, 2)) is
unavailing. Merely combining or splitting modules is not the same as some
modules being included in a first circuit and a wakeword detection module
being included in a second circuit that utilizes more power than the first
circuit but less power than the electronic device, and furthermore where the
second circuit is activated by a signal from the first circuit. Reply Br. 4–5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
(1) independent claims 5 and 11; and (2) dependent claims 7–10 and 13–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 7, 9–11,
13, 16–20
103 Basye, Dadu 5, 7, 9–11,
13, 16–20
8, 14, 15 103 Basye, Dadu,
Wilpon
8, 14, 15
Overall
Outcome
5, 7–11,
13–20