Ex Parte Beattie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2014

10938762 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VALERIE L. BEATTIE and MARILYN JAGER ADAMS

____________

Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–30.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to interactively tracking oral
reading of text from a document including recording audio for a sentence
read by a user and determining when the user has reached the last word of
the sentence. Visual feedback is provided to the user reading on a sentence
by sentence level to indicate a current location in the passage. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
interactively tracking oral reading of text from a document and
providing feedback to a user in response to reading with the tracking
providing sentence level visual feedback indicative of a user’s location in a
passage by:
generating by a computer, a first visual feedback indicia that is
applied on a plurality of words in a sentence when displayed on a display
device to indicate a current location in the passage;
recording, by the computer, audio for the sentence read by the user;
determining, by the computer, using speech recognition processing,
when the user has reached a last word of the sentence;
updating visual feedback to the user after the user completes the last
word of the sentence to indicate an updated current location in the passage,
by:
removing by the computer the first visual feedback indicia from the
plurality of words in the sentence, with the first visual feedback indicia

1 A telephonic oral hearing was conducted on November 13, 2014. A
transcript of the hearing will be made of record when it becomes available.
Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762

3
being substantially concurrently removed from each of the plurality of words
in the sentence; and
generating by the computer, second visual feedback indicia that is
applied on a second, different plurality of words in a subsequent sentence
when displayed on the display device.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–19 and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mostow (US 5,920,838; July 6, 1999) in
view of Mossman (US 4,636,173; Jan. 13, 1987).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 20–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Mostow.

ISSUES
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
Mostow and Mossman combination teaches or suggests the limitations of “a
first visual feedback indicia that is applied on a plurality of words in a
sentence when displayed on a display device to indicate a current location in
the passage” and “removing . . . the first visual feedback indicia from the
plurality of words in the sentence . . . , and generating . . . , second visual
feedback indicia that is applied on a second, different plurality of words in a
subsequent sentence” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–19 and 25–30
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762

4
Appellants assert that Mostow describes a reading and pronunciation
tutor system that provides several different types of visual feedback to a user
by highlighting words without recorded pronunciations, graying previous
sentences, and highlighting misread words (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue
that none of these types of highlighting are used to indicate a current
location of a user in the passage where, upon a user reaching the final word
in a sentence, the visual indicia is removed from the plurality of words in the
completed sentence and applied on a second, different plurality of words in a
subsequent sentence (App. Br. 7). In particular, Appellants argue that the
highlighting is applied on a word-by-word basis and not to a plurality of
words in a sentence (App. Br. 8). Appellants further argue that Mossman
similarly applies highlighting only to a single word or syllable in a text
accompanying a pre-recorded audio soundtrack that is replayed (App. Br. 9).
According to Appellants, nowhere in Mossman is a visual feedback indicia
applied to a plurality of words in a sentence to indicate a current location
(App. Br. 9).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. At the outset, we note
that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim
language because the claim requires “visual feedback indicia,” rather than
“highlighting” as argued. We agree with the Examiner that Mostow’s tutor
10 (Fig. 1) is an intelligent agent that helps persons to improve their reading
skills by providing speech and graphical assistance such as modifying the
manner in which text, to be read, is displayed (col. 3, ll. 3–12; Ans. 13). In
particular Mostow teaches that “tutor 10 displays a sentence to the user”
(col. 3, l. 3; col. 9, l. 2–3 (emphasis added)). So, besides marking words in
red without recorded pronunciation, Mostow teaches a sentence or fragment
Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762

5
is selected by the system for the user to read (col. 9, lines 2–3). We agree
with the Examiner that the selected sentence or fragment is necessarily
displayed in a distinguished manner from the rest of the text, in order for the
user to recognize it and read it (Ans. 13). The sentence being selected must
be necessarily recognized by the user as selected to be read, and thus, meets
the limitation of “a first visual feedback indicia that is applied on a plurality
of words in a sentence when displayed on a display device to indicate a
current location in the passage” as required by claim 1. We note again that
the claim is broader in scope than argued because no “highlighting” is
claimed.
Even if we were to agree with Appellants that it is misread words that
are marked in red or otherwise highlighted (App. Br. 7–8), since Mostow
teaches that a sentence is selected for reading, then it follows that the
misread highlighted words within the sentence (see also col. 8, ll. 66–67 and
Fig. 2) constitute highlighted “plurality of words” in a sentence to indicate a
current location as required by claim 1. The claim does not require that the
entire sentence be highlighted. Again, even if we were to agree with
Appellants’ argument that indicia are applied to misread words within a
sentence, when those indicia are removed and applied to misread words in a
subsequent sentence, the claim limitation of “removing . . . the first visual
feedback indicia from the plurality of words in the sentence . . . , and
generating . . . , second visual feedback indicia that is applied on a second,
different plurality of words in a subsequent sentence” is met by the teachings
in Mostow.
We further agree with the Examiner’s (Ans. 13) finding that after the
reading of the sentence or fragment is complete and the recording is
Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762

6
accepted, the highlighting is removed (col. 9, lines 14–15), and obviously
the next sentence is selected and highlighted for the user to read. In
addition, the graying of a previous sentence (col. 3, lines 60–61) constitutes
a visual feedback that indicates the current location of the user in the
passage, and is updated as well (Ans. 13). We agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 13) that otherwise, the graying would not be applied always on the
previous sentence.
Accordingly, Mostow teaches updating a visual feedback to indicate
the current location of a user in a passage, and also the visual feedback is
applied on a plurality of words of a sentence.
With respect to the separately argued claims 11 and 12, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer without having to repeat
them herein (Ans. 10–12).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 11, and 12 and
for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2–10, 13–19, and 25–30.
Appellants agree that claims 2-10, 15-18, and 25-27 stand or fall with claim
1 (App. Br. 6); that claim 19 stands or falls with claim 11 (App. Br. 10); that
claim 13 stands or falls with claim 12 (App Br. 11); and that claims 29 and
30 stand or fall with claim 28 (App. Br. 11).
Claims 20–24
Appellants repeat similar arguments as those raised for claim 1, for
claims 20–24. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of these claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the Mostow and Mossman
combination teaches or suggests the limitations of “a first visual feedback
Appeal 2012-005133
Application 10/938,762

7
indicia that is applied on a plurality of words in a sentence when displayed
on a display device to indicate a current location in the passage” and
“removing . . . the first visual feedback indicia from the plurality of words in
the sentence . . . , and generating . . . , second visual feedback indicia that is
applied on a second, different plurality of words in a subsequent sentence”
as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–30 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).

AFFIRMED

ELD