Ex Parte Largey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2018

13408863 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/408,863 02/29/2012
102469 7590 09/13/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henry P. Largey
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.
IR-11-0228-US 1 4424
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRY P. LARGEY
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-15, which are all the claims rejected in the
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Nvidia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
2 The Examiner indicates claims 16-20 are allowable. Final Act. 8.
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
controlling an electronic device. Spec. ,r 1. For example,
[ o ]ne aspect provides a sound-activated control system that
includes a receiver and a command discriminator. The receiver
is configured to receive an audio waveform and to produce a
digital audio waveform from the audio waveform. The
command discriminator is configured to detect a temporally
and/or spectrally compact nonphonetic audio command within
the digital audio waveform and to control a voice-activated
system in response to the nonphonetic command.
Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A sound-activated control system, comprising:
an audio receiver configured to receive an audio
waveform and to produce a digital audio waveform therefrom;
a command discriminator configured to detect a
temporally and spectrally compact nonphonetic audio command
within said digital audio waveform and to control a voice-
activated system in response to said temporally and spectrally
compact nonphonetic audio command.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Harif
(US 6,820,056 Bl; Nov. 16, 2004) and Stevens et al. (US 5,615,271; Mar.
25, 1997) ("Stevens"). Final Act. 3-5. 3
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection dated July 1,
2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief dated February 3, 2017 ("App.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer dated September 21, 2017 ("Ans."); and
(4) the Reply Brief dated November 20, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863
Claims 3, 4, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Harif, Stevens, and
Zakarauskas (US 7,957,967 B2; June 7, 2011). Final Act. 8.
Claims 7, 10, and 13-15 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Harif,
Stevens, and Walker (US 7,664,801 B2; Feb. 16, 2010). Final Act. 7.
Alternatively, claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the collective
teachings of Rubenstein (US 2008/0083893 Al; Apr. 10, 2008) and Stevens.
Final Act. 2-3.
Alternatively, claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of
Kim (US 2011/0140635 Al; June 16, 2011) and Stevens. Final Act. 5-6.
ANALYSIS
Combination I (Harif as the Primary Reference)
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art portions
teach "a command discriminator configured to detect a temporally and
spectrally compact nonphonetic audio command within said digital audio
waveform," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See App.
Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
We begin with claim construction. As pointed out by Appellant (App.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 2), the inventor specifically defines the claim term
"spectrally compact" in the Specification:
3
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863
[S]pectrally compact as used herein in this discussion and in
the claims is defined as having at least 5 0% of the acoustic
energy of the nonphonetic audio signal concentrated within a
spectral bandwidth substantially less than the spectral
bandwidth of typical human vocalization. Substantially less in
this context means about 10% or less than the human voice
spectral bandwidth.
Spec. ,r 18 ( emphases added).
Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner's determination that "the
definition of spectrally compact provided in the specification is open-ended"
(Ans. 5). The Examiner does not clearly explain what she means by "open-
ended," and we determine the term is defined as reproduced above in the
Specification.
We now tum to the Examiner's findings regarding the prior art. The
Examiner finds "Harif fails to specifically describe the details of the
nonphonetic command is ... spectrally compact." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner then cites Stevens' column 5, line 37 to column 6, line 50 for
teaching the claimed "spectrally compact" nonphonetic audio command.
See id.
We have reviewed the cited Stevens' excerpts, and agree with
Appellant that such excepts do not teach the claimed "spectrally compact"
nonphonetic audio command. See App. Br. 9. Further, the Examiner's
finding below does not explain why Stevens teaches the claimed "spectrally
compact" nonphonetic audio command:
The [Stevens'] system requires ... the series of 2 to 4 claps to
be received within a 1.5 second clap window where for the 2
claps must be space 584+/-217 ms apart and the 3 and 4 claps
must be X+/-217ms apart, which would provide for a
temporally and spectrally compact nonphonetic audio
command, since the claps combined with the time interval
4
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863
between the series of claps must all fall within the 1.5 second
clap window.
Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner's finding that "[in Stevens,] claps
combined with the time interval between the series of claps must all fall
within the 1.5 second clap window" (Final Act. 4) describes the temporal
aspect-not the claimed "spectrally compact" aspect according to the
Specification's definition.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner additionally cites
Stevens' column 4, lines 10 through 12. See Ans. 4.
We have reviewed the additional Stevens' excerpts, and agree with
Appellant that such excepts do not teach the claimed "spectrally compact"
nonphonetic audio command. See Reply Br. 3. In particular, the
Examiner's findings that "Stevens specifically teaches the frequency band of
2000 to 2800 Hz is 'the predominate frequency range of a typical hand
clap"' and "[ a ]n acoustic signal that represents only the frequency range of
2000 to 2800 Hz is a description of a spectrally compact sound" (Ans. 4) do
not explain how Stevens teaches the claimed "spectrally compact"
nonphonetic audio command. As discussed above, the Specification defines
"spectrally compact" as "having at least 50% of the acoustic energy of the
nonphonetic audio signal concentrated within a spectral bandwidth
substantially less than the spectral bandwidth of typical human vocalization"
and "[s]ubstantially less ... means about 10% or less[.]" Spec. ,r 18. The
Specification explains "spectral components of human speech typically fall
within a range from about 100 Hz to about 5 kHz" and "about one tenth of
the voice band [is] about 500 Hz or less." Id. Therefore, Stevens' disclosure
of "the frequency band of 2000 to 2800 Hz" is well above 500 Hz, and does
5
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863
not teach the claimed "spectrally compact" nonphonetic audio command
according to the Specification's definition.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 11 also recites a "spectrally compact" nonphonetic
audio command, and the Examiner applies the same findings and
conclusions discussed above with respect to that claim term. See claim 11;
Final Act. 4. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 11.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-10
and 12-15, which depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively. Although the
Examiner cites additional references for rejecting some dependent claims,
the Examiner has not shown the additional references overcome the
deficiency discussed above regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 11. See
Final Act. 7-8.
Combination II (Rubenstein as the Primary Reference)
Alternatively, the Examiner cites the collective teachings of
Rubenstein and Stevens for rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 12. Final Act.
2-3. Each of those claims recites the claimed "spectrally compact"
nonphonetic audio command, and the Examiner applies similar findings and
conclusions discussed above with respect to that claim term. See Final Act.
2-3; Ans. 2--4.
6
Appeal2018-001296
Application 13/408,863
Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's alternative
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 12 ( citing Rubenstein as the primary
reference).
Combination III (Kim as the Primary Reference)
Alternatively, the Examiner cites the collective teachings of Kim and
Stevens for rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 11. Final Act. 5---6. Each of those
claims recites the claimed "spectrally compact" nonphonetic audio
command, and the Examiner applies similar findings and conclusions
discussed above with respect to that claim term. See Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 6-
8.
Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's alternative
rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 11 ( citing Kim as the primary reference).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7