10027580 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)

Ex Parte Gupta

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 22, 2012

10027580 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 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. 10/027,580 12/21/2001 Sunil K. Gupta 29250-000550 1242 30594 7590 05/23/2012 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER VO, HUYEN X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2012 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 SUNIL K. GUPTA ____________ Appeal 2010-001500 Application 10/027,580 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-11, 13, and 14. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Although the Examiner erroneously indicates that claim 7 is rejected and appealed (Ans. 6), this claim was cancelled and is not before us. Accord App. Br. 2-3 (noting cancellation of claim 7); Reply Br. 2 (same); Ans. 2 (confirming this status as correct). Appeal 2010-001500 Application 10/027,580 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is a speech recognition system that updates and customizes recognition vocabulary. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0001, 0006-08. Claim 8 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized: Claim 8. A speech recognition system, comprising: a client device receiving an utterance from a user; and a server in communication with the client device, the client device comparing the received utterance to a stored recognition vocabulary representing a currently active vocabulary, recognizing the received utterance and dynamically modifying the stored recognition vocabulary to improve recognition accuracy for subsequent received utterances, wherein the client device enable the user to create a replacement command word that is stored in the stored recognition vocabulary as a replacement command word corresponding to the received utterance, where the user’s utterance was not recognized by the client device. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 8-11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Everhart (US 6,587,824 B1; July 1, 2003 (filed May 4, 2000)) and Hedin (US 6,185,535 B1; Feb. 6, 2001). Ans. 3-5. 2 2. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Everhart, Hedin, and Kanevsky (US 6,161,090; Dec. 12, 2000). Ans. 5-6. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February 5, 2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 30, 2008; and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 23, 2008. Appeal 2010-001500 Application 10/027,580 3 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER EVERHART AND HEDIN The Examiner finds that Everhart’s speech recognition system has every recited feature of representative claim 8 except for a server communicating with a client device, but cites Hedin as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-8. Appellant argues that Everhart teaches away from the proposed combination with Hedin. App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 4-6. According to Appellant, modifying Everhart’s vehicular speech recognition system to include a remote server such as that in Hedin would unnecessarily complicate Everhart’s system and add lag time. Id. ISSUE Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Everhart and Hedin supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether Everhart teaches away from including a server communicating with the client device as claimed. ANALYSIS We begin by noting that it is undisputed that Everhart and Hedin collectively teach all limitations of claim 8. Rather, the dispute before us hinges on the references’ combinability. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from Appeal 2010-001500 Application 10/027,580 4 the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). That is not the case here. First, as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 7), the recited server has no particular function in claim 8 apart from communicating with the client device. Compare dependent claims 11 and 13 (reciting server vocabulary builder and database functions). In any event, we see no reason why a server could not be included in Everhart’s vehicular speech recognition system as the Examiner proposes, particularly in view of Everhart’s network capability via vehicle network bus 42. See Everhart, col. 4, ll. 39-41; Fig. 2. As shown in Figure 2, the network bus connects the central control unit 19 to, among other things, accessories 42, 44, 46 which can be “any powered devices,” such as climate control, clock, navigation system, etc. Everhart, col. 4, ll. 43-47. Leaving aside the fact that a server arguably comports with Everhart’s broad characterization of an accessory since a server is a powered device, Everhart’s network capability is nonetheless not limited to vehicle accessories. Rather, the bus can connect other devices together, including those within the central control unit 19 itself. Everhart, col. 4, ll. 51-55 (noting that the user interface 26 and voice control system (VCS) module 30 can be separate devices coupled via network bus 48). On this record, we see no reason why providing a server via this bus in connection with the central control unit’s functionality would not predictably use prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We reach this conclusion noting that Everhart’s central control unit includes memory and processing functions which could Appeal 2010-001500 Application 10/027,580 5 be at least enhanced by a bus-connected server connected to the central control unit via its I/O module 24 as the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 7-8. Appellant’s arguments regarding the impracticality of adding Hedin’s “more powerful server” to Everhart’s system (App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 4-6) are unpersuasive for they are not germane to the limited purpose for which Hedin was cited—namely merely to show that a client device could be connected to a server in a speech recognition system. See Ans. 7. Nor has Appellant provided persuasive evidence on this record proving that such an enhancement would render Everhart inoperable or otherwise unsuitable for its intended purpose. And even assuming, without deciding, that providing a server would complicate Everhart’s system and add lag time as Appellant asserts (App. Br. 11), such a drawback could very well be offset by the advantages of server-based functionality including enhanced processing and storage capabilities. Balancing the relative advantages and disadvantages of such an enhancement is an engineering tradeoff well within the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. We therefore find that the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Everhart and Hedin supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 8, and claims 9-11 and 14 not separately argued with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 13. Ans. 5-6. Despite nominally arguing this claim separately, Appellant Appeal 2010-001500 Application 10/027,580 6 reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 8, and alleges that Kanevsky fails to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8-11, 13, and 14 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-11, 13, and 14 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 kis