Ex Parte Sharifi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13626439 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/626,439 09/25/2012 Matthew Sharifi
26192 7590 06/22/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-4434001 7464
EXAMINER
GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW SHARIFI and
GHEORGHE POSTELNICU
Appeal2014-005069 1
Application 13/626,4392
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-24, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The record will be updated to include a transcript of the oral hearing held
May 17, 2016.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Inc. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to Appellants, the disclosed and claimed invention "relates
to identifying results of a query based on a natural language query and
environmental information, for example to answer questions using
environmental information as context." Spec. i-f 2.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving audio data encoding (i) an utterance and (ii)
background audio data;
obtaining a transcription of the utterance;
identifying an entity using the background audio data;
submitting a query to a natural language query processing
engine, wherein the query includes at least a portion of the
transcription and data that identifies the entity that is identified
using the background audio data; and
obtaining one or more results of the query.
Rejections on Appeal3
1. Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Droppo (US Pat. App. Pub.
No. 2005/0071157 Al, pub. Mar. 31, 2005) and Li (US Pat. App. Pub.
No. 2009/0240668 Al, pub. Sept. 24, 2009). Non-Final 7.
3 Appellants do not appeal the provisional nonstatutory obviousness type
double patenting rejection of claims 1, 11, and 18. App. Br. 10.
2
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
2. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Droppo, Li, and Hon (US Pat. App. Pub. No.
2007/0010992 Al, pub. Jan. 11, 2007). Non-Final 17.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite methods, systems, and storage
devices with instructions for receiving "audio data encoding an utterance"
and second data (i.e., one of "background audio data," "image data," or
"environmental data"), "obtaining a transcription of the utterance,"
identifying an entity or title of media content using the second data,
"submitting a query" that includes both part of the transcribed speech and
"data that identifies the" entity or title of media content previously
identified, and obtaining query results.
The Examiner finds Droppo teaches receiving the audio data encoding
an utterance recited in claims 1, 11, and 18, as well as receiving the
background audio data recited in claim 1 and the environmental data recited
in claim 18. Non-Final 8-9. The Examiner finds Li discloses receiving
image data encoding an image captured by the computing device, as recited
in claim 11. Id. at 8, 10. The Examiner further finds Droppo teaches
obtaining a transcription of the utterance. Id. at 9. The Examiner finds Li
teaches "obtaining one or more results of the query." Id. at 11. Appellants
do not dispute these findings on Appeal. See App. Br. 11-19.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 18 each recite using the received
second data (background audio data of claim 1, image data of claim 11, or
environmental data of claim 18) to identify either an entity (claims 1 and 11)
or a title of an item of media content (claim 18) (the "identifying"
limitations). Claims 1, 11, and 18 also each recite submitting a query
3
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
including a portion of the transcription and data identifying either the entity
(claims 1 and 11) or the title of an item of media content (claim 18) (the
"submitting a query" limitations).
The Office Action breaks the identifying limitations into two parts-
( 1) identifying an entity or a title of an item of media content and (2) using
the background audio, image, or environmental data. See Non-Final 9-11.
The Examiner relies on Li for disclosing the first part. Id. at 9-11. The
Examiner finds Droppo teaches using the background audio data (claim 1)
and the environmental data (claim 18), and finds Li discloses using the
image data (claim 11). Id. at 9-10.
Similarly, the Office Action breaks the submitting a query limitations
into three parts----(1) submitting a query; (2) the query includes at least a
portion of the transcription and data; and (3) the data is data that identifies
the entity or title of item of media content identified using the background
audio, image, or environmental data. See Non-Final 9-11. The Examiner
relies on Li for disclosing the portion relating to submitting a query. Id. The
Examiner relies on Droppo for disclosing the query includes a portion of the
transcription and data. Id. The Examiner again finds Droppo teaches using
the background audio data (claim 1) and the environmental data (claim 18),
and Li discloses using the image data (claim 11). Id. at 9-10.
Appellants argue "Droppo and Li, taken as a whole, fail to disclose or
render obvious at least" the identifying limitations and the submitting a
query limitations of claims 1, 11, and 18. App. Br. 11, 13, 15. With respect
to the disputed limitations, Appellants provide a brief summary of what Li
and Droppo discuss and argue neither Li nor Droppo alone discloses the
identifying limitations or the submitting a query limitations. The Examiner
4
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
responds that Appellants cannot establish "nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references." Ans. 3, 6, 9.
We agree with the Examiner. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097, (Fed. Cir. 1986). Other than the limitations discussed in more
detail below, the Appeal Brief does not clearly identify which portions of the
"identifying" limitations and the "submitting a query" limitations allegedly
are not taught by the portions of Droppo or Li cited by the Examiner.
Rather, as mentioned above, Appellants simply assert neither Li nor Droppo,
alone, teaches either the "identifying" limitations or the "submitting a query"
limitations in their entirety. As the Examiner points out, however, the
rejections of the majority of the disputed limitations of claims 1, 11, and 18
(the exception, the "identifying" limitation of claim 11, is discussed further
below) rely on a combination of Droppo and Li. Ans. 3, 6, 9. The Examiner
also provides a reasoned statement with a rationale underpinning for
combining the teachings of Droppo with the teachings of Li, Non-Final 11-
12, which is not challenged in the Appeal Brief.
Appellants argue Li does not mention "'identifying a title of an item
of media content,' as recited in the instant claim." App. Br. 17. However,
Appellant does not explain why search terms associated with the image in Li
do not meet the recited "title of an item of media content." A specific
example from Li describes associating certain areas of a picture of characters
from the television show "The Sopranos" with various search terms. Li
i-fi-124--26. Specifically, Li discloses that the portion of the image depicting
James Gandolfini portraying Tony Soprano is a searchable item. Id. i128.
"When the viewer clicks on the character, the Digital Image Server 130 will
5
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
use the default search term 'Tony Soprano' to query the search engine." Id.
at i-f 26. Thus, Li discloses identifying the search phrase "Tony Soprano,"
which is associated with that image. We find Li's disclosed image meets
any reasonable understanding of "an item of media content." When asked
whether "Tony Soprano" or "the Sopranos" in this context meets the recited
"title of an item of media content," counsel for Petitioner responded that "I
think that Tony-- the Sopranos is a title of media content but that's not a
title of an item of media content that is identified using environmental data."
Tr. 8:21-9:4 (emphasis added). As discussed, the Examiner relies on a
combination of Droppo and Li, not Li alone, to teach "identifying a title of
an item of media content using environmental data." Accordingly,
Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in finding Li teaches
the recited "title of an item of media content."
The Examiner does rely on Li alone, however, for teaching
"identifying an entity using the image data." Non-Final 9. Appellants argue
"Li discusses 'identify[ing] the clicked object' that the user selected, and
'retriev[ing] a default search term' that is 'associated with the identified
object,"' but does not mention "identifying an entity using the image data,"
as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 14 (citing Li i-fi-122, 25). The Examiner
responds to Appellants' argument by stating that Li discloses "a digital
image server 130 that can identifj; an entity using image data and/or speech
data encoded via its searching engine capabilities 140." Ans. 7 (citing Li
,-r,-r 20-22, 24-27, 29-37).
Li discloses that "certain information about the item" of interest in an
image may be extracted and stored in a database. Li i-f 25. Li then explains
the "present invention employs a location-based method and a speech
6
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
recognition based method for viewers to select a searchable item and for the
digital image system to identifj; the selected item." Id. (emphasis added). Li
also explains that the searchable items may "be a physical object such as an
actor or a product, or a non-physical object such as a recipe or a
geographical location ... [or] something not shown, but conveyed in the
image, such as a concept." Id. i-f 24. Appellants have not explained
sufficiently why the searchable objects described by Li would not
encompass an "entity" or why the process described in Li to identify the
item would not constitute "using the image data." Accordingly, Appellants
do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings.
Without a clear articulation of a specific defect in the Examiner's
factual findings and legal conclusions, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-23 as obvious under§ 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Droppo and Li. Similarly, Appellants
have not raised any additional arguments with respect to the Examiner's
findings and legal conclusion of obviousness regarding claim 24.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24
as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Droppo, Li, and Hon.
On this record, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred
in finding Droppo and Li teach the identifying limitations and the submitting
a query limitations. Moreover, Appellants have not challenged the
sufficiency of the Examiner's stated basis for motivation to combine the
references in the manner suggested. We do not consider arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal2014-005069
Application 13/626,439
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err with respect to the
obviousness rejections of claims 1-8, 11-15, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and, for the reasons
stated above, we sustain the rejections of 1-8, 11-15, and 18-24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 11-15, and
18-24 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
8