Ex Parte Mauro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

13787763 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/787,763 03/06/2013
115794 7590 10/01/2018
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
and attorneys for client number 008148
1100 13th Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Andrew Mauro
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.
008148.00009 9444
EXAMINER
GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
BWNuanceAdmin@bannerwitcoff.com
IP.Inbox@nuance.com
PT0-115794@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ANDREW MAURO, HENRI BOUVIER,
ELIZABETH ANN DYKSTRA-ERICKSON, SIMONA GANDRABUR,
SUSAN DA WNSTARR DANIEL, AIMEE PIERCY,
and ROBERT DOUGLAS SHARP
Appeal2018-001993
Application 13/787,763 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 15-23. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, Nuance Communications, Inc. is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 10, 13, and 14 have been canceled. App. Br. 13
Appeal2018-001993
Application 13/787,763
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a nmltimodal task assistant that accepts
voice input. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 (with emphasis) is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving input, at a first device, from a user through multi
modal input including a plurality of speech input, typing input,
and touch input;
determining a meaning of the input;
determining, based on prior interactions with the user, that
there is context related to the input, wherein the context
comprises information that can be used to interpret a request in
the input;
generating, based on a combination of the input and the
context, an interpreted input in a natural language format,
wherein the interpreted input comprises a query;
translating the interpreted input from the natural language
format to a format compatible with an application, to generate a
formatted query;
providing the formatted query to the application;
receiving data from the application in response to the
formatted query;
providing a response to the user through multi modal
output including a plurality of: speech output, text output, non-
speech audio output, haptic output, and visual non-text output;
updating the context based on the interpreted input;
verifying, based on a connection type between the first
device and a second device, that the first device is proximal to
the second device; and
in response to the verifying that the first device is proximal
to the second device, transmitting the context from the first
device to the second device.
2
Appeal2018-001993
Application 13/787,763
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gruber et al. (US
2012/0016678 Al; published Jan. 19, 2012) and Reisman (US 8,527,640 B2;
filed Sept. 2, 2009). Final Act. 2-17.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Reisman teaches devices that are in local
proximity are packaged together by a distance that might be linked by local
network communications, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
"verifying, based on a connection type between the first device and a second
device, that the first device is proximal to the second device" recited in
claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 9 and 1 7). Ans. 4--5 ( citing
Reisman, 17:4--17). The Examiner also finds system A sharing a session
with system B, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "in response to
the verifying that the first device is proximal to the second device,
transmitting the context from the first device to the second device" recited in
claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 9 and 1 7). Ans. 6 ( citing Reisman,
34:14--33).
Appellants argue Reisman fails to teach "verifying ... the first device
is proximal to the second device; and in response to the verifying that the
first device is proximal to the second device, transmitting the context from
the first device to the second device" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited
in claims 9 and 1 7) because Reisman teaches grouping proximal devices
together into a set, but sharing sessions across different device sets rather
3
Appeal2018-001993
Application 13/787,763
than between devices within a device set. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-3. We
agree with Appellants.
As an initial matter, we note that claim 1 (and similarly recited in
claims 9 and 1 7) recites "based on a connection type between the first device
and a second device," which we interpret as a condition precedent before the
subsequent limitation in the next sentence. The limitation "verifying ... that
the first device is proximal to the second device" is interpreted as a
verification of proximity between a first device and a second device. This
interpretation is consistent with the limitation "in response to the verifying
that the first device is proximal to the second device, transmitting the context
from the first device to the second device" ( emphasis added) recited in claim
1 ( and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17).
The cited portion of Reisman relied upon by the Examiner teaches
devices that are in local proximity are packaged together by a distance that
might be linked by local network communications. Ans. 4--5 ( citing
Reisman, 17:4--17). Another cited portion of Reisman teaches system A
sharing a session with system B. Ans. 6 ( citing Reisman, 34: 14--33).
However, these cited portion fails to teach sufficiently the limitation
"verifying ... that the first device is proximal to the second device; and in
response to the verifying that the first device is proximal to the second
device, transmitting the context from the first device to the second device"
recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17) because Reisman
4
Appeal2018-001993
Application 13/787,763
teaches grouping proximal 3 devices together into a set, but sharing sessions
across different device sets rather than between devices within a device set.
Moreover, a cited portion of Reisman teaches two sub-networks connected
via an Internet connection, but appears to ignore proximity between
subnetworks (i.e., the subnetworks are connected via Internet rather than by
technology requiring proximity for connecting such as Bluetooth or WiFi).
Final Act. 5-6 (citing Reisman, 58:10-23). We find the remaining cited
portions of Reisman do not remedy the shortcomings of the most relevant
cited portions of Reisman, which we discuss supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 9, and 17; and (2) dependent claims 2-8, 11, 12,
15, 16, and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 12, and
15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
3 We disagree with the Examiner's statement that the Specification makes no
mention of the limitation "connection type" and is silent as to verifying that
the first device is proximal to the second device. Ans. 7. We conclude
Appellants' disclosure of "Bluetooth" in the Specification supports
"connection type" and verifying that the first device is proximal to the
second device. Spec. ,r 119.
5