Ex parte IWAMIDA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 1998

08250433 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 27, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HITOSHI IWAMIDA
____________
Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,4331
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 6), claim 1
was amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a speech recognition
apparatus that also recognizes non-speech sounds.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
1. A speech recognition apparatus comprising:
Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,433
2
sound input means for inputting a sound signal;
feature extracting means for extracting
features for recognition of the sound signal;
standard feature pattern storing means for storing
feature patterns of standard nonspeech sound signals representing
sounds other than human speech sounds, as well as feature
patterns of standard speech sound signals representing human
speech sounds;
comparing means for comparing the extracted features of
the input sound signal with the feature patterns stored in the
standard feature pattern storing means, and for selecting a
standard sound signal corresponding to the input sound signal;
display pattern storing means for storing speech sound
display information representing the standard speech sound
signals as characters and nonspeech sound display information
corresponding to the standard nonspeech sound signals; and
display means for displaying display information
corresponding to the standard sound signal selected by the
comparing means.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Sanada et al. (Sanada) 5,329,609 July 12, 1994
(filed July 30, 1991)
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sanada.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,433
3
OPINION
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 3) that Sanada
“fails to explicitly teach the standard feature pattern storing
means (105) for storing feature patterns of standard non-speech
sound signals and display pattern storing means (107) for storing
non-speech sound display information corresponding to the
standard non-speech sound signals.” According to the examiner
(Answer, pages 3 and 4),
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the present invention was made
to modify the storing means of Sanada et al as claimed
to store different sound signal (speech or non-speech
signal) in order to provide flexibility to the speech
recognition system.
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 13 and 14) that:
The applied reference does not disclose or suggest
a constitution similar to that of the present invention
as claimed in which nonspeech sound is detected and
information regarding the detected nonspeech sound is
displayed.
Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that,
for a sufficient rejection under 35 USC 103,
obviousness must be shown from the prior art, and not
merely by supposed capabilities of known displays,
since in the present invention it is the very
particular subject matter that is being displayed which
itself forms a significant feature of the invention -
therefore, since the present invention is not shown or
suggested in the prior art, it is respectfully
submitted that it would clearly be unobvious to display
such non-shown information.
Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,433
4
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the
above rejection over the prior art amounts merely to a
piecemeal recombination of elements informed by
hindsight rather than by anything fairly suggested in
the reference upon which the Office Action has relied.
In the absence of evidence in the record or a convincing
line of reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to add non-speech sound capability to
Sanada, we agree with appellant’s argument that improper
hindsight has been used to demonstrate obviousness of the claimed
invention. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 6
is reversed.
Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,433
5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,433
6
ARMSTRONG, WESTERMAN, HATTORI, McLELAND & NAUGHTON
1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20006
KWH/jrg
APPEAL NO. 97-0438 - JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPLICATION NO. 08/250,433
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ KRASS
APJ THOMAS
DECISION: REVERSED
Typed By: Jenine Gillis
DRAFT TYPED:28 May 98
FINAL TYPED:
3 MEMBER CONF. Yes No