11733129 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Bennett

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 30, 2012

11733129 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

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. 11/733,129 04/09/2007 Ian M. Bennett AX-3 7630 48196 7590 08/30/2012 DAVID LEWIS 1250 AVIATION AVE., SUITE 200B SAN JOSE, CA 95110 EXAMINER LERNER, MARTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte IAN M. BENNETT ____________ Appeal 2009-015344 Application 11/733,129 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claim 1-20, which are the remaining claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2009-015344 Application 11/733,129 2 Invention Appellant’s invention relates to a system and an interactive method for an enabling a website to have interactive, real-time speech-enabled web pages. This interactive system is especially useful when implemented for e-commerce, e-support, search engines and the like, so that a user can intelligently and easily control an internet session using a conventional browser that is enhanced to handle speech capabilities. (Spec. 1, ll. 18-22.)1 Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method of interacting through speech with a web-connected server system using a browser program, the method comprising the steps of: establishing a connection between a client device and the web-connected server for communicating speech related data; providing a speech recognition engine configured to generate a recognized speech query from an utterance; wherein said speech recognition engine can be configured based on a latency requirement specified for said speech query to permit partial or full recognition of said utterance at said client device and/or a server device; presenting one or more web pages to the browser program, such that data content for said one or more web pages transmitted to the browser program is controlled by said recognized speech query. 1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 10, 2009; and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 13, 2009. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 12, 2009. Appeal 2009-015344 Application 11/733,129 3 Rejections on Appeal2 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over White (US Patent No. 6,408,272 B1, issued Jun. 18, 2002) and Barclay (US Patent No. 5,960,399, issued Sep. 28, 1999). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3-5, 9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over White, Barclay, and Thrift (US Patent No. 6,188,985 B1, issued Feb. 13, 2001). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over White, Barclay, Thrift and Ladd (US Patent No. 6,269,336 B1, issued Jul. 31, 2001). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of White and Barclay would have collectively taught or suggested “wherein said speech recognition engine can be configured based on a latency requirement specified for said speech query to permit partial or full recognition of said utterance at said client device and/or a server device” (emphasis added), within the meaning of independent claims 1, 11, and 20? 2 The Final Rejection included a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, which was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Answer. (Ans. 4.) Accordingly, the § 112, first paragraph rejection is not before us. Appeal 2009-015344 Application 11/733,129 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, and 17-20 Appellant contends that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest configuring a speech recognition system based on latency requirements. More particularly, Appellant contends, inter alia, The problem with this contention is that nothing in Barclay et al. discusses “considering” a latency requirement; if it did, one would expect there to be some discussion of altering the size of the buffer, or the partitioning of speech recognition responsibilities to accommodate different desired latencies or operating conditions. Instead, as has been discussed many times before, Barclay et al. shows the same static configuration for each speech query, regardless of its source/origin, client device, server device, channel conditions, etc. There is no hint or mention of changing the speech operations based on a latency requirement. (App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).) We find that the present claims require that the speech configuration engine must be capable of being configured based on a latency requirement (claim 1), the speech configuration engine is configured based on a latency requirement (claim 20), or that the speech configuration engine can be configured by considering a specified latency requirement (claim 11). Therefore, a latency requirement is utilized to configure the engine. The Examiner stated that White implicitly discloses that latency is reduced by performing speech recognition functionality at a remote system when the local device is not capable of responding to the speech input. (Ans. 8, 16.) The Examiner also argued that Barclay teaches a server 80 accepts and buffers messages received from a client 70 for a purpose of reducing latency time before sending it on to be recognized. (Ans. 8-9.) Therefore, we find White and Barclay teach utilizing the system to reduce Appeal 2009-015344 Application 11/733,129 5 latency. However, reducing latency is not the same as utilizing latency or a latency requirement to configure the system, as required by the claim language. The Examiner has not proffered nor do we find that White or Barclay describe a latency requirement, much less utilizing such a latency requirement. Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, and 17-20. Claims 3-5, 9, 13-15, and 16 As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 3-5, 9, 13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over White, Barclay, and Thrift and White, Barclay, Thrift, and Ladd. We do not find, nor has the Examiner established, that either Thrift or Ladd cures the deficiencies of White and Barclay discussed supra. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3-5, 9, 13-15, and 16 for the same reasons discussed supra. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED Appeal 2009-015344 Application 11/733,129 6 peb