Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

14284005 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
14/284,005 05/21/2014 Pilwon KIM 1398-665 (YPF201307) 1086
66547 7590 01/31/2018
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
WANG, YI SHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PILWON KIM
Appeal 2017-0075681
Application 14/284,005
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2017-007568
Application 14/284,005
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a “method and an apparatus for
managing audio data in an electronic device, which allow preliminary
identification of contents of audio data through a text.” Specification 2:10—
11. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. A method of managing audio data of an electronic device,
the method comprising:
converting at least a part of audio data to a text;
storing the converted text as preview data of the audio
data;
adding talker information about a recognized talker to the
stored preview data; and
displaying the stored preview data in response to a request
for a preview of the audio data.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6—12, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Koo (WO 2013/168860 Al; Nov. 14, 2013).
Final Action 3.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koo and Konig (US 7,487,094 Bl; Feb. 3, 2009).
Final Action 10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
2
Appeal 2017-007568
Application 14/284,005
are not persuaded the Examiner errs; we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis below.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1,
because “Koo at least fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious adding talker
information about a recognized talker to the stored preview data and
displaying the stored preview data in response to a request for a preview of
the audio data, as recited in Claim 1.” Appeal Brief 3^4 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends, “[ijnstead, in Koo, as shown and described above, the
information is only displayed in a separate pop-up window, and is not shown
or described as added to the preview information.” Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
storing converted text as preview data of the audio data, adding talker
information about a recognized talker to the stored preview data, and
displaying the stored preview data. The claim does not provide additional
description of the term “adding,” nor does Appellant identify in the
Specification any limiting disclosures—such as a particular memory
configuration—for the claimed “adding,” “stored” or “storing.” For
example, Appellant’s Figures 3A and 3C show displays of preview data (i.e.,
text converted from audio) with displays of talker information (e.g., pictures,
phone numbers, etc., of the person talking). See Specification 11:2—12:11;
see also Specification 12:12—15 (“As described above with reference to
FIGs. 3 A to 3C, the user of the electronic device 100 according to an
embodiment of the present invention can preliminarily identify contents of
3
Appeal 2017-007568
Application 14/284,005
the audio data through the preview data 21, 22, 23, and 24 or the preview
popup window 40 without the reproduction of the audio data.”).
Koo, similar to Appellant’s method, states “terminal 100 may display
information associated with the voice memo on the screen through a pop-up
window (1110).” Koo 1340; see also Answer 4. Koo teaches adding talker
information to the stored converted text (see Koo 1156) and displaying both
(see Koo, Fig. 11C, depicting the display of converted text along with a pop­
up containing the talker’s name and contact information).2 See Answer 5
(“In Koo, both of the text displays in the partial screen and in pop-up
window are information associated with the voice data and can be
considered as preview.”). Thus, Appellant does not persuade us the
Examiner errs in finding “Koo renders obvious . . . each of the limitations in
Claim[] 1.” Id.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For the
same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 11
and dependent claims 2, 5—10, 12, and 15—20, which are not separately
argued. See Appeal Brief 3, 8, 11—12.
B. Dependent Claim 3
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claim 3,
because “while Konig describes distinguishing between a Speaker A and a
Speaker B in audio of a call,. . . Konig does this by recognizing events
spoken about by each of Speaker A and Speaker B (i.e., labeling events
spoken by the agent (e.g., Speaker A) versus events spoken by the customer
2 Additionally, we note Koo further discloses displaying both converted text
and talker information as part of a file name. See Koo 1159.
4
Appeal 2017-007568
Application 14/284,005
(e.g., Speaker B)),” which “is different than determining who the speakers
are by analyzing a tone of the audio, as recited in Claim[] 3.” Appeal Brief
11.” Particularly, Appellant contends “the tone described in Konig relates to
non-linguistic events and thus is not analogous to the method of the present
application for analyzing the tone of the audio data to convert at least a part
of the audio data into text distinguished by respective talkers.” Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 3 ultimately depends
upon claim 1, and further recites:
wherein converting at least the part of the audio data to the text
comprises analyzing a tone of the audio data; and
wherein storing the displayed text as the preview data of
the audio data comprises storing the converted text distinguished
by respective talkers according to a result of the analysis of the
tone of the audio data.
Konig discloses “an acoustical speaker separation is performed to
distinguish Speaker A from Speaker B” (Konig 11:16—17) and teaches
analyzing the conversation using tones (see, e.g., Konig 3:16—19). See Final
Action 10—11. We agree with the Examiner that Konig, thus, teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 3. See Final Act. 10.
Appellant’s arguments that “the tone described in Konig relates to
non-linguistic events” (Appeal Brief 9) is inapposite, as Konig uses the term
“non-linguistic events” to refer to qualities of the audio file that are not
“words, phrases, and sentences,” that is, audio qualities other than the
spoken words themselves (Konig 3:18; see also id. at 4: 45 46). We find
one of ordinary skill would understand Konig as teaching or suggesting the
non-linguistic events (including tones) are used in the converting and storing
of the audio recording, within the meaning of the claim. See Final Action 3;
see also id. at 11; Konig 3:1—20; 7:64—8:13; 11:9—17.
5
Appeal 2017-007568
Application 14/284,005
Separately, we note Koo teaches using tone analysis in converting and
storing audio data, as Koo discloses “speaker B converses while calling the
other Bob in the state of remembering the voice of the speaker A and the
voice of the speaker B (for example, in the state of remembering his or her
voice tone, manner of speaking, and the like),” so that “the mobile terminal
100 derives that the name of the speaker A is Bob through the conversation.”
Koo 1134. The Examiner finds the “combination of Koo and Konig,
teaches, suggests[,] or renders obvious” the limitations of claim 3. Ans. 7.
Appellant does not persuade us such finding is erroneous.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
3, and dependent claim 13 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—20 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).
AFFIRMED
6