13298629 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte Lim

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 2017

13298629 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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. 13/298,629 11/17/2011 Jonathan Lim 81230.156US1 2127 34018 7590 03/02/2017 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER GODBOLD, DOUGLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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): j arosikg @ gtlaw .com chiipmail @ gtlaw .com escobedot@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN LIM Appeal 2015-007245 Application 13/298,629 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant requests rehearing of our Decision on Appeal entered December 30, 2016 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1, 3—9, 11—15, 17—19, 22, 24, and 26. Appeal 2015-007245 Application 13/298,629 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Request for Rehearing in view of our Decision. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of anything our decision misapprehended or overlooked. We note the following for emphasis. Appellant argues that our Decision misapprehended or overlooked Appellant’s arguments as follows: because Comerford does not disclose, teach, or suggest providing individual command function entries within a codeset record with a phonetic representation of a unique one of a plurality of function name synonyms by which each of the one or more of the series of individual command function entries is to be referenced and because no rational reason has been provided to demonstrate how or why one of skill in the art would have used the teachings within Comerford - which suggests nothing more than a system in which a first data structure, namely a “vocabulary data structure,” stores a set of strings and a system in which the list of strings stored in the “vocabulary data structure” is searched by successively comparing a “spoken command” with the strings stored within the “vocabulary data structure” - to modify Huang 1 and/or Huang 2 to arrive at the exact invention claimed, it is again respectfully submitted that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be withdrawn. Req. Reh’g 3^4. We find this unpersuasive because, as discussed in our Decision, the Examiner’s rejection is not based on the teachings of a single reference but is instead based on what the combined teachings of the reference would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Decision 3—4; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant’s argument that “no rational reason has been provided to demonstrate how or why one of skill in the art would have used the teachings within Comerford ... to modify Huang 1 and/or Huang 2 to arrive at the exact invention claimed” (Req. Reh’g 3) is 2 Appeal 2015-007245 Application 13/298,629 not a persuasive argument against obviousness because it overlooks the Examiner’s reasoning that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use synonym data as taught by Comerford in the system of Huang [1] and Huang [2] in order to improve command recognition accuracy.” Final Act. 5; Decision 4. Appellant has not provided sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us that the Examiner’s reasoning is not rational or that we misapprehended or overlooked any points in rendering our Decision. DECISION Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we have granted Appellant’s request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but we deny Appellant’s request to make any changes in our Decision. The request for rehearing is denied. 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). REHEARING DENIED 3