10341154 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

Ex Parte Birnbaum et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 21, 2010

10341154 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

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. 10/341,154 01/13/2003 Lawrence Birnbaum 08803-014 6805 7590 09/22/2010 McDermott, Will & Emery 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2010 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) The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL- 90A cover letter attached to this decision. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte LAWRENCE BIRNBAUM, KRISTIAN HAMMOND and LEONARD CHEN ____________ Appeal 2009-012666 Application 10/341,154 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-012666 Application 10/341,154 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A machine-executed method of providing interactive assistance for the performance of a set of predefined steps, said method comprising: A. accessing data related to the set of predefined steps, and for each of one or more steps from said set of predefined steps, automatically generating a grammar, including: 1) generating a set of navigation commands related to the step, based on a context of the step; and 2) generating a set of rules to recognize potential queries related to the step, based on the context of the step; B. providing a recognizer configured for determining if a received vocal utterance corresponds to one of said set of generated navigation commands or one of said potential queries related to a current step according to the generated rules, within a context of said current step; and C. navigating to a different step from the current step if said vocal utterance is a navigation command corresponding to at least one of the generated navigation commands or providing a response if said vocal utterance is a query corresponding to one of said potential queries according to the generated rules. The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Paris UUS 20020171674 A1 Nov. 21, 2002 The following rejection is before us for review. Appeal 2009-012666 Application 10/341,154 3 The Examiner rejected claims 1 - 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Paris. Independent claim 1 requires: [P]roviding a recognizer configured for determining if a received vocal utterance corresponds to one of said set of generated navigation commands or one of said potential queries related to a current step according to the generated rules, within a context of said current step; and C. navigating to a different step from the current step if said vocal utterance is a navigation command corresponding to at least one of the generated navigation commands or providing a response if said vocal utterance is a query corresponding to one of said potential queries according to the generated rules. The Examiner found that Paris discloses this feature at “(Para 0013-0018, Para 0035-Para 0043, equivalent to audible recipe instructions controlled by voice- command system - generated rules inherent to understanding and complying with voice commands).” (Answer 4). While Paris at ¶ [0035] discloses that the input device for inter interactive computer may be a voice-command system, it stops at that and does not disclose explicitly or make mention of any other voice driven device element which would make inherent the steps forth above. Therefore we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2009-012666 Application 10/341,154 4 Independent claim 2 requires teaching grammar rules via a series of determining steps, which include: l) determining if the recipe step includes an ingredient reference and, if so, adding to said grammar a rule that recognizes the ingredient in a query; 2) determining if the recipe step includes a technique reference and, if so, adding to said grammar a rule that recognizes the technique in said query; 3) determining if the recipe step includes a tool reference and, if so, adding to said grammar a rule that recognizes the tool in said query…. The Examiner cites to Paris ¶ [0042] as meeting this claim limitation. Paris at ¶ [0042] discloses: The interactive recipe includes one or more hyperlinks, especially in food preparation instructions, that is preferably a multimedia file, such as an MPEG or JPEG, stored at the database 22, which can include entertaining electronic animations and audio files. In FIG. 4A, the recipe 60 is shown as readily identifiable header on the GUI 16 screen. The user pulls-up this screen from a command menu which can be created in any manner known in the art of software engineering. Assuming the hyperlinks correspond to one of an ingredient, technique or tool, there is still not disclosure of adding the link for, example to a library of such topics, so as to meet the further claim limitations above either expressly or inherently. Therefore we will not sustain the rejection of claim 2. Appeal 2009-012666 Application 10/341,154 5 Since claim 3 depends from claim 2, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2, the rejection of claim 3 likewise cannot be sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 is reversed. REVERSED MP McDermott, Will & Emery 28 State Street Boston MA 02109