Ex Parte Jansche et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

13912255 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/912,255 06/07/2013 Martin Jansche
26192 7590 12/20/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16113-3717001 1008
EXAMINER
TZENG, FENG-TZER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN JANSCHE, KAISUKE NAKAJIMA, and YUN-HSUAN
SUNG
Appeal2017-002016
Application 13/912,255
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, IRVINE. BRANCH, and JOSEPH P.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-002016
Application 13/912,255
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22, which are all the claims pending in
the application. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a computing device including one or more
processors, a touch input from a user, the touch input including:
(i) a spot input followed by (ii) a slide input from the spot input
in a direction, the spot input indicating a request to provide a
speech input to the computing device, wherein the user does not
break contact with a touch display of the computing device
during the touch input;
determining, at the computing device, a direction of the
slide input from the spot input; and
determining, at the computing device, a desired language
for automatic speech recognition of the speech input by
matching the direction of the slide input to one of a plurality of
predetermined directions associated with a plurality of
languages for selection by the user;
in response to receiving the touch input, receiving, at the
computing device, the speech input from the user;
obtaining, at the computing device, one or more
recognized characters resulting from automatic speech
recognition of the speech input using the desired language; and
outputting, at the computing device, the one or more
recognized characters.
2
Appeal2017-002016
Application 13/912,255
Prior Art
Jun-Dong
Yaksick
US 2010/0146451 Al June 10, 2010
US 2011/0285656 Al Nov. 24, 2011
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jun-Dong and Yaksick.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the
Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We
affirm the rejection for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We
address arguments from the Reply Brief to complete the record.
Appellant contends Jun-Dong does not determine the direction of the
slide input. Reply 2-3. However, Y aksick teaches determining the direction
of the slide input. Yaksick, ,r,r 40-41, 49, and 57.
Appellant contends Yaksick does not teach initiating speech input and
selecting a desired language for automatic speech recognition in a single
slide input, "wherein the user does not break contact with the touch display
... during the touch input" as claimed, because Y aksick does not use the
words "the user does not break contact with the touch display." See Reply
3--4. However, Appellant's specification does not use these words either.
Rather, Appellant's specification simply states that a touch input can include
a spot input, followed by a slide input. 1 Spec. ,r 54.
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
claim 1 satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3
Appeal2017-002016
Application 13/912,255
Yasick teaches a tap, or "spot input," of a microphone key to begin
speaking voice input, where the voice input language matches the keyboard
language (i-f 49). Yaksick teaches a swipe, or "slide input," to change the
language (i1i126, 28, 31, 36, 40, 41, 57, and 64) by using the "starting point,
ending point, and/or direction of [the] swipe" (i-f 41). We determine tapping
the microphone key of Y aksick (i-f 49) as a starting point of a swipe as taught
by Y aksick (i-f 41 ), then swiping in a direction associated with another
language as taught by Y aksick (i-f 41 ), is the combination of familiar
elements according to known methods that does no more than yield the
predictable results of indicating voice input and changing the language as
taught by Yaksick. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007).
To the extent Yaksick does not explicitly use the words "the user does
not break contact with the touch display" when providing the spot and slide
inputs, we find providing this feature was within the level of ordinary skill.
"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." Id. at 421. The obviousness analysis "need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418. Here,
paragraphs 41 and 42 of Yaksick teach that macros, key combinations, and
other swipe settings can be set by a user. We conclude that a user setting a
macro that (a) starts at a microphone key, providing a "spot input," then (b)
Negative limitations are adequately supported when the specification
describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Here, Appellant has
not identified a reason disclosed in the specification to exclude breaking
contact with the touch screen. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceurtical, Inc.,
694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
4
Appeal2017-002016
Application 13/912,255
swipes in a direction associated with a language, providing a "slide input,"
"wherein the user does not break contact with a touch display," as claimed,
to execute the known functions of indicating voice input and changing to the
associated language, "was a design step well within the grasp of a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art." Id. at 427.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
combine the teachings of Jun-Dong and Yaksick. We disagree for the
reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. 2 We highlight that Y aksick alone
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and that the teachings of Jun-Dong
are cumulative to those of Y aksick.
We highlight that using the "distance of the swipe" to change the
language to French as taught by paragraph 36 and Figure lB ofYaksick
teaches using a "predetermined distance" of the slide input as recited in
claim 4. Using the "direction of the swipe" to change the language as taught
by paragraph 41 of Y aksick teaches receiving "a first input from the user
indicating a specific direction for each of the plurality of languages for
selection by the user" as recited in claim 5.
2 Both the Chinese Patent Office (in a paper entered on February 27, 2018),
and the European Patent Office (in a paper entered on November 22, 2017),
have also rejected the claims in the corresponding foreign applications as
unpatentable over the combination of Jun-Dong and Y aksick.
5
Appeal2017-002016
Application 13/912,255
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection 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)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6