Ex Parte Coles et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 2010

10393729 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SCOTT DAVID COLES, CHRISTOPER REON GENTLE,
CHRITOPHER MICHAEL GORINGE, RODNEY HARRISON and
JULIAN JAMES ORBACH
_____________

Appeal 2009-004486
Application 10/393,729
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: April 22, 2010
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD Jr., Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004486
Application 10/393,729

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 7 through 9, and 11, 15 through 17.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed toward a voice recognition system for
transcription of multi speaker conference. The output of each voice
recognition units is merged on a time basis. See page 2 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for converting all audio information from a plurality of
participants to combined textual information, comprising the steps of:
performing independent voice recognition operations on audio
information from each of the plurality of participants by a separate voice
recognition unit for each of the plurality of participants thereby creating a
stream of textual information for each of the plurality of participants;
inserting a time stamp with each word of each stream of textual
information; and
combining the streams of textual information and time stamps into
combined textual information on the basis of the time stamps in each of the
plurality of streams of textual information whereby the combined textual
information is textual information of the all audio information.

REFERENCES
Ortega US 6,332,122 B1 Dec. 18, 2001
Naik US 6,690,772 B1 Feb. 10, 2004

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 7 through 9, 11, and 15
through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Ortega in view
of Naik. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer.

2

Appeal 2009-004486
Application 10/393,729

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 4 and 5 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellants assert
that claim 1 recites “inserting a time stamp with each word of each stream of
textual information.” Appellants argue that Ortega does not teach or suggest
inserting a time stamp for with each word. Appeal Brief 5. On page 6 of the
Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 9 is similarly in
error.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue:
With respect to claims independent claims 1 and 9, did the Examiner
err in finding that Ortega and Naik teach inserting a time stamp for with
each word as recited in independent claims?

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Ortega and Naik teach inserting a time stamp for with each
word. Claim 1 recites “inserting a time stamp with each word of each
stream of textual information.” Independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar
limitations. Thus, each of the independent claims in the application recite
that there is a time stamp inserted with each word. The Examiner in
rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 17 found that Ortega discloses
inserting a time stamp with each word of each stream, citing column 5, lines
4-38, and column 7, lines 18-25. Answer 7. We disagree with the
Examiner’s findings. Ortega teaches that text and speech are time stamped
preceding the text of each new speaker. Col. 5, ll. 35-38. Ortega also
teaches that when used with captioning systems, the time stamps can be used
3

Appeal 2009-004486
Application 10/393,729

to synchronize the captioning with the television or movie media. Col. 7, ll.
22-25. However, we do not find that these teachings of Ortega teach or
suggest that time stamps are inserted with each word, as the claims require.
Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that the
combination Ortega and Naik teach all of the limitations of independent
claims.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 7 through 9, 11,
and 15 through 17 is reversed.

4

Appeal 2009-004486
Application 10/393,729

REVERSED

ELD

JOHN C. MORAN, ATTORNEY, P.C.
4120 EAST 115 PLACE
THORNTON, CO 80233-2623
5