Ex Parte Griffin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2010

10887279 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JASON TYLER GRIFFIN
____________________

Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 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.

Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to increasing the
efficiency of inputting interrogative punctuation into electronic messages,
such as those generated in a handheld electronic device (Spec. 1, ll. 6-8).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method of inputting interrogative punctuation into text
generated by a handheld electronic device, the method
comprising the steps of:

inputting at least one sequence of characters comprising
the text;

examining the at least one sequence of characters for at
least a first word at the beginning of the at least one sequence of
characters indicative of an interrogatory; and

inputting termination of the at least one sequence of
characters and automatically adding the interrogative
punctuation to the at least one sequence of characters when the
at least first word at the beginning of the at least one sequence
of characters is indicative of an interrogatory.

2
Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Griffin US 6,396,482 B1 May 28, 2002
Divay US 2004/0138881 Jul. 15, 2004
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Griffin in view of Divay.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in holding that Griffin in view of Divay
would have suggested “examining the at least one sequence of characters for
at least a first word at the beginning of the at least one sequence of
characters indicative of an interrogatory” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Griffin
1. Griffin discloses a user interface engine that automatically inserts a
period (full stop) in the user input field if the user enters one of a
number of predefined character sequences such as
(col. 11, ll. 6-15).
Divay
2. Divay discloses a speech recognition system that includes a
punctuation system to automatically determines where to insert
3
Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279

punctuation marks in recognized text without requiring the
punctuation marks to be pronounced, wherein the punctuation marks
include commas, periods and question marks (pg. 2, ¶ [0032]).
3. The non-verbalized punctuation mark is predicted using at least one
text feature and at least one acoustic feature related to the utterance,
such as a period of silence, a function of pitch words near the period
of silence, and average pitch of words near the period of silence,
and/or a ratio of an average pitch of words near the period of silence
(pg. 1, ¶ [0009]).
4. Divay discloses using a model that predicts whether there is
punctuation or no punctuation, wherein the model uses words before
and after the gap, called text features, accessed from a recognizer (pg.
5, ¶ [0065])

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “the cited references fail to disclose or suggest
all of the elements recited in the claims” (App. Br. 7). In particular,
Appellant contends that “Griffin does not teach or suggest insertion of any
other punctuation other than a period” and though Griffin “teaches
examining character sequences,” Griffin “does not teach examining for any
word, let alone a ‘first word at the beginning of the at least one sequence of
character’” as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 9). The Appellant points out
that “the character sequences considered by Griffin appear to occur at or
near the point of the inserted period” (id.).
Appellant then adds that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Divay
pertaining to examining a sequence of characters for any word indicative of
4
Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279

an interrogatory, let alone a ‘first word at the beginning of the at least one
sequence of characters indicative of an interrogatory,’ as recited in claim 1”
(App. Br. 11). In particular, Appellant asserts that “Divay, like Griffin, only
discloses using elements near the inserted punctuation, in this case the word
before and after the inserted punctuation, to determine what punctuation is
desired” (id.).
The Examiner finds that “Griffin teaches examining the at least one
sequence of characters including the beginning of the at least one sequence
of characters to determine if a specific character has been entered” (Ans.
12). The Examiner also finds that “Divay teaches a method and system for
automatically inserting of non-verbalized punctuation mark in speech
recognition” wherein “the non-verbalized punctuation may include a
comma, periods and question marks” (Ans. 13).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with the Appellant that
the sections of Griffin and Divay referenced by the Examiner, alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest “examining the at least one sequence of
characters for at least a first word at the beginning of the at least one
sequence of characters indicative of an interrogatory,” as required by claim
1.
Griffin discloses examining predefined character sequences to insert a
period (FF 1). As Appellant points out, “Griffin does not teach or suggest
insertion of any other punctuation other than a period” and “the character
sequences considered by Griffin appear to occur at or near the point of the
inserted period” (App. Br. 9).
5
Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279

Furthermore, Divay discloses determining where to insert punctuation
marks such as question marks in recognized text (FF 2), wherein the
punctuation mark is predicted using at least one text feature and at least one
acoustic feature related to the utterance (FF 3). Divay discloses that the at
least one text feature include the words before and after a gap (FF 4).
We agree with Appellant that there is no teaching or even suggestion
in the sections of Griffin and Divay referenced by the Examiner, alone or in
combination, of examining a sequence of characters for any word indicative
of an interrogatory, “let alone a ‘first word at the beginning of the at least
one sequence of characters indicative of an interrogatory,’ as recited in claim
1” (App. Br. 11). That is, though Griffin may teach examining characters
(near a period) to insert a period (FF 1), and Divay may teach inserting a
question mark (FF 2), we cannot find any suggestion in the referenced
sections in either Griffin or Divay, alone or in combination of the required
“examining the at least one sequence of characters for at least a first word at
the beginning of the at least one sequence of characters indicative of an
interrogatory” (claim 1).
As such, we will reverse the rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claim 12 standing therewith, and claims 2-11 and 13-20
depending respectively therefrom.

V. CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in holding claims 1-20
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

6
Appeal 2009-006158
Application 10/887,279

VI. DECISION
We have not sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to any
claim on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is
reversed.

REVERSED

peb

RIM/FINNEGAN
901 NEW YORK AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
7