Ex Parte McDunn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2018

14961224 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/961,224 12/07/2015
138908 7590 07/17/2018
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin J. McDunn
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.
MM01466 1382
EXAMINER
YANG,QIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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 KEVIN J. MCDUNN and BALAJI THIAGARAJAN1
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
Technology Center 2600
Before: JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER S. BISK and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-19. Claim 20 has been indicated to contain allowable
subject matter. Final Act. 17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal of these
claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Motorola Mobility LLC as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 10, 2017), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 1, 2017), and Appellants' Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 25, 2017). We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
STATEMENT OF CASE
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
illustrative claims 1, 9, and 16, which are reproduced below:
1. A method in an electronic device, the method
compnsmg:
[a] receiving, with an audio capture device, audio
input;
[b] identifying, with one or more processors, a
device command from the audio input;
[ c] determining, with a voice interface engine, an
identity of a user from the audio input;
[ d] detecting, with one or more sensors, one or more
multi-modal social cues from an environment about the
electronic device; and
[ e] where the one or more multi-modal social cues
match one or more predefined criteria and the identity of
the user is determined, executing, with the one or more
2
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
processors, a control operation in response to the device
command.
9. A method in an electronic device, compnsmg:
receiving, with an audio capture device, audio input
comprising a device command;
determining, with a voice interface engine operable
with the audio capture device, whether a predefined
user can be identified from the audio input;
where the predefined user can be identified,
actuating, with one or more processors, an intelligent
1mager;
receiving, with the intelligent imager, one or more
multi-modal social cues;
determining, with the one or more processors,
whether the one or more multi-modal social cues match
one or more predefined criteria; and
where the one or more multi-modal social cues
match the one or more predefined criteria, executing,
with the one or more processors, a control operation in
response to the device command.
16. An electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors;
an audio capture device, operable with the one or
more processors; and
one or more sensors, operable with the one or more
processors, the one or more sensors cascaded in a
predefined order to detect a plurality of multi-modal
3
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
social cues to determine whether a device command is
intended for the electronic device;
the one or more processors to:
cause the audio capture device to receive an
audio input; identify, from signals from the audio
capture device, the device command from the audio
input;
detect, with the one or more sensors, one or
more multi-modal social cues from an environment
about the electronic device; and
where the one or more multi-modal social cues
match one or more predefined criteria, execute a
control operation in response to the device
command.
App. Br. 23-24, 26 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2013/0190089 Al; pub. July 25,
2013, hereinafter "Wilson") and Haughay (US 2011/0208524 Al;
pub. Aug. 25, 2011). Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wilson, Haughay, and Kalinli-Akbacak (US 2014/0112556 Al; pub.
Apr. 24, 2014). Final Act. 5.
4
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
3. Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Haughay, and Abi-Rached et al. (US
2016/0062469 Al; pub Mar. 3, 2016, hereinafter "Abi-Rached").
Final Act. 6-8.
4. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Haughay, and Alberth et al. (US
2013/0222271 Al; pub. Aug. 29, 2013, hereinafter "Alberth.") Final
Act. 8-9.
5. Claims 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Wilson. Final Act. 9-14.
6. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilson and Morgan et al. (US 6,937,984 B 1; iss.
Aug. 30, 2005, hereinafter "Morgan"). Final Act. 14--15.
7. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilson and Abi-Rached. Final Act. 15-16.
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wilson and Kalinli-Akbacak. Final Act. 16-17.
5
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments, the principal and dispositive issues
are whether the Examiner erred in combining Wilson and Haughay to teach
or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 because the references are not
properly combinable and whether Wilson teaches or suggests each of the
limitations of claims 1 and 16. App. Br. 11. In particular, for claim 1,
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the proposed
combination is based on impermissible hindsight. Reply. Br. 9.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Final Act 2--4, 9--13. Further, we
have reviewed the Examiner's response to the contentions of claims 1, 9,
and 16 argued by the Appellants. Ans. 21-22, 27-31; see also App. Br. 12-
21; Reply Br. 8-11.
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act 2-24), and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief ( Ans. 21-3 6). We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding the rejections of claim 9 and claim 1, for emphasis, as follows.
The Examiner finds that Wilson explicitly teaches all the elements of
claim 9 except "determining, with a voice interface engine operable with the
audio capture device, whether a predefined user can be identified from the
audio input." Final Act. 9--11. For that limitation, the Examiner explains
that Wilson can be broadly read to "identify a predefined user from the audio
6
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
input (at least in part in combining with the image signal)." Final Act. 10.
In the alternative, the Examiner explains that "it would be obvious that
Wilson discloses the device can identify a predefined user from the audio
input" because "Wilson discloses the device can identify command
meanings" and at that time "when a voice signal comprising a user name and
password, a user can be identified." Id. at 10 (citing to Haughay, [0025]).
Appellants contend that
Wilson never teaches the identification of users from audio data.
Moreover, Wilson fails to teach the use of a voice interface
engine to determine the identity of a user. To the contrary,
Wilson identifies devices, not users. The accuracy of Wilson's
identification is completely dependent upon whether a particular
person is using a device assigned to them. By contrast,
Appellant's invention properly identifies users by voice
characteristics. Wilson therefore fails to teach each and every
limitation of claim 9.
App. Br. 13.
Appellants do not, however, address the Examiner's reliance on
Wilson's disclosure that it may capture a voice signal (Final Act. 9 (citing
Fig. 16, step 1600-1606)) and that it can identify command meanings (id.
(citing Fig. 21D, "ZOOM", "MOVE")). We do not agree with Appellants'
characterization of Wilson as "never" teaching "the identification of users
from audio data." App. Br. 13. For example, as pointed out by the
Examiner (Final Act. 9), Wilson's Figure 16 explicitly addresses "USER
COMMANDS IN THE FORM OF HEAD MOVEMENTS, VOICE
SIGNALS, ETC." Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 9 as obvious over Wilson.
7
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
Regarding independent claim 16, we also do not agree with
Appellants arguments for patentability. App. Br. 14--18. We find that the
Examiner has explained the obviousness rejection in the Final Action with
sufficient evidence and, moreover, has responded in the Answer to each and
every one of Appellants' arguments. Final Act. 11-13; Ans. 21-
29. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning,
which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we find no error
in the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 16 as obvious over Wilson. 2
The Examiner finds that Wilson teaches elements [a], [b], [ d], and [ e]
of claim 1 (Final Act 3--4), and Haughay teaches element [ c]. Final Act. 4.
Appellants contend that
Wilson includes its own identification system that transmits a device
tag ID via radio frequency waves so that audio inputs can be reserved
for voice commands. It is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art
would switch from the device tag identification of the primary
reference to audio identification, since this would interfere with
Wilson's reservation of audio channels for only voice commands.
App. Br. 18.
Appellants also contend that
factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness,
"[I]mpermissable hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion
must be reached on the basis of facts gleaned from the prior art. "
MPEP §2142.
Here Wilson teaches using RFID tags for identification. There is no
teaching found "in the prior art" to the contrary. The addition of
Haughay to Wilson fails to correct this deficiency for the reasons set
2 We need not reach the Examiner's alternative anticipation rejection of
claims 9, 15, 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as we find the
Examiner's reliance on the teachings of Wilson to be sufficient to support
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
8
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
forth in Appellant's Brief, namely, that no primafacie case of
obviousness has been set forth and the reservation of Wilson's voice
channels for voice commands would be disrupted with the addition of
Haughay.
Reply Br. 9.
We disagree with Appellants' argument that the proposed
combination of Wilson and Haughay is motivated by impermissible
hindsight. It has been held that where the claimed subject matter involves
more than the simple substitution of one known element for another or the
mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement, a holding of obviousness must be based on "an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed." KSR Int 'l.
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007). That is, "there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on
interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id. at
417-18.
In the present case, the Examiner found that:
the application of Wilson can be extended to identify a user by a
content (by a user explicitly speaks his usemame, or password), or in
a case where the connection for wand device is not good, the user can
still be identified by talking to the device a usemame, password or a
voice print. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art that if a device tag ID can't identify a user, a user's voice
signal can still identify a user.
9
Appeal2018-000707
Application 14/961,224
Ans. 30 (referring to Final Act 3--4).
We find the Examiner's articulated rationale has a sufficient rational
underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
418. Moreover, the proposed combination would require merely the
ordinarily skilled artisan to use common sense. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Appellants present no arguments for claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19
and their corresponding rejections. We refer to the above discussion and
further adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusion concerning the
rejections of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
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
10