Ex Parte Badt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2013

10676590 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

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.
10/676,590 10/01/2003 Sig Harold Badt JR. 129250-002273 7975
32498 7590 05/29/2013
CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. BOX 1995
VIENNA, VA 22183
EXAMINER
PULLIAS, JESSE SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2013 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 SIG HAROLD BADT, JR.
____________

Appeal 2011-001912
Application 10/676,590
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001912
Application 10/676,590

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 22-27. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a voice recognition system with a
graphical user interface (See generally, Spec. 4:1-12). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer interface system, comprising:

a microphone that receives audio input from a user;

a speech recognition mechanism, wherein the speech
recognition mechanism includes a predefined dictionary having
a plurality of recognized input terms and commands; and

a user interface, wherein the user interface provides a
form having a plurality of pull-down menu fields for user input,
wherein upon selection of one field and receipt of a recognized
command spoken by the user, the user interface displays a list
of recognized input terms in a pull-down menu that are
appropriate for input into the selected field on the form,

wherein upon receipt of an appropriate recognized input
term, the input term is input in the selected field, and the system
automatically selects a next field on the form for user input.

Appeal 2011-001912
Application 10/676,590

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bissonnette
Groner
Vanbuskirk
US 5,602,963
US 5,668,928
US 6,308,157 B1
Feb. 11, 1997
Sept. 16, 1997
Oct. 23, 2001

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groner and Bissonnette.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Groner, Bissonnette, and Vanbuskirk.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Groner does not disclose “a user interface . . .
wherein upon selection of one field and receipt of a recognized command
spoken by the user, the user interface displays a list of recognized input
terms in a pull-down menu that are appropriate for input into the selected
field on the form,” as recited in representative independent claim 1 (App. Br.
5-6). Specifically, Appellant argues Groner’s Figures 4A and 4B, and the
accompanying description, do not “explicitly describe the display of a pull
down menu after the selection of a field and receipt of a spoken, user
command” (App. Br. 5). Further, Appellant argues, the words in the tool bar
of Figures 4A and 4B “appear to be related to functions that can be selected;
they do not appear to be terms that are ‘input into a selected field’” (App. Br.
6).
Groner discloses, with reference to Figure 2:
Appeal 2011-001912
Application 10/676,590

4
[A]n example of a paper based data entry form. As is the case
for many data entry forms, the form is divided into a number of
distinct sections, some of which call for checking various boxes
applicable to a particular data entry situation, some of which
call for entry of text and/or number, and some of which may
call both for checking boxes and entry of text and/or numbers.
Furthermore, most, although not necessarily all, sections of a
data entry form include a title or label that helps the user
identify the form section.

(Groner, col. 6, ll. 4-10). In creating an electronic version of such a form for
use with Groner’s inventive speech recognition system (see Groner, col. 4, l.
15-col. 5, l. 19), Groner discloses:
In the preferred embodiment, each aspect of a data entry
form is defined as an “object.” Thus, logical sections of the
data entry form are each objects, each checkbox button and its
associated text or fill in line is an object, each text box for entry
of data is an object and fixed text labels for form sections and
text boxes are also objects. . . .

For each object in the data form, the form tool user
specifies all necessary voice commands and keywords in an
object “property” dialog window. . . .

Data Entry by End User Voice Input

[A]n end user subsystem 200 in the preferred embodiment
includes a Voice Dictionary file 159 that stores phoneme strings
that describe the pronunciation of words associated with
various form sections, textboxes and buttons as well as the
pronunciations of words used in navigation commands common
to all data entry forms.

(Groner, col. 6, ll. 14-42). Thus, as quoted above, Groner generally
discloses using a speech recognition system for navigating and entering data
Appeal 2011-001912
Application 10/676,590

5
into a computerized data entry form. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites
the following specific example in Groner (Ans. 5, 10-11):
For example, if the items listed in a menu are “in the left eye,”
“in the right eye,” and “in both eyes,” the voice syntax for one
specified menu item allows the user to select the first item by
saying “left,” “left eye,” “the left,” or “in the left eye.”

(Groner, col. 6, ll. 56-60). The Examiner also cites this example relating to
pull-down menus (Ans. 5, 9-10):
FIGS 4A and 4B show pull down menus 210, 212
associated with a drawing program. Each such pull down
menus can, when using the present invention, be defined as a
distinct context, with the items in the main horizontal menu 214
being used as navigation commands available for selection
within all pull down menu contexts.

(Groner, col. 7, 23-28; Figs. 4A and 4B). When reading these examples in
the context of Groner’s disclosure as a whole, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 10-11) and conclude Groner’s system suggests a user interface
capable, upon a user selecting a field and receiving a command from the
user, of “display[ing] a list of recognized input terms in a pull-down menu
that are appropriate for input into the selected field on the form,” as recited
in claim 1. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are only
directed to the example disclosed in Groner’s Figures 4A and 4B (see App.
Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1-3), and do not consider the teachings of the reference as
a whole, including portions specifically relied upon by the Examiner.
We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 22-27 not separately argued.

Appeal 2011-001912
Application 10/676,590

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18,
19, and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19,
and 22-27 is affirmed.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

pgc