Ex Parte Locker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12977184 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
12/977,184 12/23/2010 Howard Locker RPS920100054USNP(710.149) 8845
58127 7590 03/30/2017
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOWARD LOCKER, DARYL CROMER,
SCOTT EDWARDS KELSO, and AARON MICHAEL STEWART
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,1841
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore)
PTE. LTD. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed February 9, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 17, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed August 15, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
September 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed
December 23, 2010 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “selective transmission of voice data.”
Title. According to Appellants, the invention is directed to “voice command
devices [shown in Figure 1] that receive sound but do not transfer the voice
data beyond the system unless certain voice-filtering criteria have been met.”
Spec. 115. In particular, “voice command devices [shown in Figure 1]
capture sound and analyze it in real-time on a word-by-word basis and
decide whether to handle the voice data locally, transmit it externally, or
both [based on voice-filtering criteria].” Spec. 115; Fig. 1.
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
Appellants’ Figure 1 shows voice data control system 102 arranged to
analyze and determine whether voice data corresponds with voice-filtering
criteria 104 in order to (1) transmit such voice data externally 106, or
(2) handle such voice data locally [at the device] 105.
2
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1,11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics'.
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors;
a system memory operatively coupled to the one or more
processors storing instructions executable by the processor to:
receive voice data obtained by a sound receiver;
analyze the voice data to determine whether the
voice data corresponds with one or more local voice
criteria, wherein the one or more local voice criteria
comprises a sound characteristic of the voice data other
than a predetermined command',
transmit at least a part of the voice data; and
filter at least one word included in the voice data,
based on the sound characteristic, such that it is not
transmitted externally.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1—8, 10-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 8,223,189 B2; issued
July 17, 2012) and Kreiner et al. (US 7,899,500 B2; issued March 1, 2011;
“Kreiner”). Ans. 2-5.
(2) Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Meyer, Kreiner, and Bush et al. (US 2004/0128137
Al; published July 1, 2004; “Bush”). Ans. 5—6.
3
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Meyer and Kreiner teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation, “analyze the voice data to determine whether the voice
data corresponds with one or more local voice criteria, wherein the one or
more local voice criteria comprises a sound characteristic of the voice data
other than a predetermined command,” as recited in independent claim 1
and, similarly recited in claims 11 and 20. App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 11—
14.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, and similarly, claims 11 and 20,
the Examiner finds Meyer teaches “well know acoustic/speech processing to
extract words from speech, and performs command recognition.” Ans. 3. In
particular, the Examiner finds Meyer teaches most aspects of Appellants’
claimed “system” including “one or more processors” configured to
“analyze the voice data to determine whether the voice data corresponds
with one or more local voice criteria, wherein the one or more local voice
criteria comprises a sound characteristic of the voice data other than a
predetermined command” in the form of ASR (automatic speech
recognition) modules 1009.1—1009.2, shown in Figure 10, arranged to
determine if voice data (e.g., speech terms) generated by a user is for local
voice command, and to remove voice commands so that other
telecommunication devices do not receive the spoken command. Ans. 2—3,
6 (citing Meyer 13:35—39, Fig. 10).
4
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Kreiner for teaching the use of a change in sound characteristics of voice
data (such as a change in rhythm, pitch, or pause) to detect voice commands.
Ans. 3, 6 (citing Kreiner 2:15—18, 2:21—25, 2:35—40, 3:37—52).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Meyer,
as well as the Examiner’s rationale for combining Meyer and Kreiner. In
particular, Appellants contend Meyer does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation: “analyze the voice data to determine whether the voice data
corresponds with one or more local voice criteria, wherein the one or more
local voice criteria comprises a sound characteristic of the voice data other
than a predetermined commandas recited in independent claim 1 and,
similarly recited in claims 11 and 20. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 11—12
(emphasis in original). According to Appellants, Meyer’s ASR is arranged
to remove certain voice commands, but
[w]hat is completely missing from Meyer, in Applicants’
opinion, is any teaching of how the ASR and removal component
operates on the voice data. For example, a plausible mechanism
of operation is that the user must manually activate the ASR and
removal component of Meyer, after which any voice data
submitted while the removal component is active is removed
from the outgoing voice data.
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 11 (emphasis added).
Appellants also acknowledge Kreiner’s “pitch, rhythm, pause, etc., is
used as a trigger to activate ASR” but argue “[t]his is not a mechanism to
filter that same audio sound containing the pitch, rhythm, pause, etc of the
voice data.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 13. As such, Appellants assert “Kreiner
is irrelevant as it is not a teaching applicable to Applicants’ claims, nor does
5
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
it account for the deficiencies of Meyer already admitted by the Office.” Id.;
Reply Br. 13.
Appellants additionally argue there is no reason to incorporate Kreiner
into Meyer because “[altering this command-focus functionality from
Meyer would change its principle of operation.” App. Br. 13.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and not commensurate
with the scope of Appellants’ claims 1,11, and 20. At the outset, we
recognize some differences between Appellants’ disclosed invention and the
Examiner’s combination of Meyer and Kreiner. For example, Appellants’
Specification describes the following functionality:
In the example depicted in FIG. 2, the user wants the cellular
phone 201 to detect the “open calendar” phrase 206 and launch
a calendar application 207 on the cellular phone, but does not
want to interrupt the conference call by the other callers hearing
the spoken phrase 206. The cellular phone 201 processes the
voice command 208 and determines whether it is one of the terms
in its predetermined local commands list 209. The “open
calendar” voice command 206 is acted on locally 210 by the
cellular phone to open the calendar application 207 because it is
located in the predetermined local commands list 209. In
addition, the voice command 206 is not transmitted externally
211 to the other callers 203, 204 engaged in the conference call.
Spec. 118.
In contrast, Meyer only teaches ASR (automatic speech recognition)
modules 1009.1—1009.2, shown in Figure 10, to analyze if voice data (e.g.,
speech terms) generated by a user is for local command and then remove
voice commands so that other telecommunication devices do not receive the
spoken command, as recognized by the Examiner. See Meyer 13:35—39,
Fig. 10.
6
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
However, Appellants’ claims 1,11, and 20 are broadly-worded and do
not reflect the differences between Appellants’ disclosed embodiment shown
in Figure 2 and Meyer. For example, Appellants’ claims 1,11, and 20
simply recite “analyzing] the voice data to determine whether the voice data
corresponds with one or more local voice criteria” and “filter[ing] at least
one word included in the voice data, based on the sound characteristic [of
the voice data], such that it is not transmitted externally.” As recognized by
the Examiner, when broadly interpreted, these limitations encompass
Meyer’s analyzing voice data and removing speech terms or commands
from the voice data so that other telecommunication devices do not receive
the speech terms or spoken commands, as disclosed by Meyer. Ans. 6
(citing Meyer 13:35—39, Fig. 10).
With respect to Appellants’ reference to “the one or more local voice
criteria [that] comprises a sound characteristic of the voice data other than a
predetermined command,” we note that limitation can be interpreted to
encompass (1) Meyer’s criteria used to detect commands (e.g. speech terms)
generated by the user, and (2) Kreiner’s criteria or listing of “command
prefixes” or “voice commands” stored in a mobile device’s internal memory
used to process voice data and determine if voice data corresponds to a voice
command, as shown in Figures 6 and 8. See Kreiner col. 2,11. 20-25 (“the
command prefix may be a change in speaking rhythm or pitch, a non-speech
sound, or even a pause in the user’s speech.”).
With respect to Appellants’ argument against the combination of
Meyer and Kreiner, we agree with the Examiner that “the principle operation
of Meyer is NOT altered; the command removal of Meyers is intact; the
addition of Kreiner shifts the notification of a command from command-
7
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
recognition to a sound-based detection, as taught by Kreiner.” Ans. 8. We
also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s reasoning that it would
have been obvious to modify Meyer in light of Kreiner “because it would
advantageously not accidentally trigger the device command.” Final Act. 3
(citing Kreiner 3:37—52).
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1,11, and 20, as well as the rejections of their respective
dependent claims 2—3, 6—10, 12—18, and 20, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 10-16; see also id. at 10 (acknowledging that claims
not separately argued stand or fall with the claim from which it depends).
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the one or
more local voice criteria comprise a pitch of the voice data.” Similarly,
claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein the one or more
local voice criteria comprise one or more non-conversational pauses in the
voice data.”
Appellants acknowledge Kreiner teaches “pitch” and “pause” analysis
in the voice data, but reiterates the same arguments presented against claim
1. App. Br. 13—15. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 5.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8
Appeal 2017-001117
Application 12/977,184
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9