Ex Parte LargeyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201813408863 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation