Ex Parte Suriyanarayanan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

11913313 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MUTHUKUMAR SURIYANARAYANAN
____________________

Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,3131
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a method of providing voice based device
management, which includes defining a set of one or more status queries for
a device, defining for each of the status queries a respective set of status
responses, mapping the status queries to corresponding voice format status

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,313

2
queries, and mapping the status responses to corresponding voice format
status responses (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of providing voice based device management,
comprising:
mapping a set of one or more status queries in a device to
corresponding voice format status queries; and
mapping a set of status responses for each of said status
queries to corresponding voice format status responses in the
device, wherein each respective set of status responses
corresponds to the instantaneous status of said device.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Funk US 2004/0019489 Al Jan. 29, 2004

Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Funk.
Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed September 8, 2011), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
February 7, 2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 9,
2011) for their respective details.

ISSUES
With respect to the § 101 rejection, Appellant argues that claim 11 is
directed to statutory subject matter because the recited invention is tied to a
machine (App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,313

3
With respect to the § 102 rejection, Appellant contends that “Funk
does not disclose ‘mapping a set of one or more status queries in the device,’
or ‘mapping a set of status responses for each of said status queries to
corresponding voice format status responses in the device’” (App. Br. 11).
Appellant argues that Funk does not disclose a networked or
networkable device, as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 13).
With respect to claim 10, Appellant argues that the telephone voice
server of Funk is not a device, and, thus, Funk does not disclose a computer
readable medium provided with program data that may be executed on a
networked or networkable device (App. Br. 14).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Is claim 11 drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101?
2. Does Funk disclose mapping a set of one or more status queries in a
device, and mapping a set of status responses for each of said status queries?
3. Does Funk disclose mapping status queries to voice format status
queries, and mapping status responses to voice format status responses?
4. Does Funk disclose a networked or networkable device?
5. Does Funk disclose a computer readable medium provided with
program data that may be executed on a networked or networkable device?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the
claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,313

4
anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS
§ 101 REJECTION
CLAIM 10
Appellant does not contest the § 101 rejection of claim 10, merely
offering to amend at a later date (App. Br. 8). We sustain this rejection pro
forma.
CLAIMS 11 AND 12
Appellant’s argument that we should consider claim 11 to be drawn to
statutory subject matter because it is “clearly tied to a machine” (App. Br. 8)
is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that the preamble
modifier “in a device” merely provides an intended field of use for the
claimed “information base,” which we regard as mere information (i.e., data)
per se lacking a functional relationship to the device.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11 and
12 under § 101. We sustain the rejection.

§ 102 REJECTION
With respect to independent claims 1, 4, 7, and 11, we do not agree
with Appellant that Funk fails to disclose mapping a set of one or more
status queries in the device, or mapping a set of status response for each of
said status queries to corresponding voice format status responses, or
mapping said device status queries to corresponding voice format status
queries in the device (App. Br. 11).
Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,313

5
We agree with the Examiner’s finding (see Ans. 6, 12) that Funk
discloses that
voice commands can equally be queries with regard to the
status of the various devices within the home . . . . [A]n
authorized user might input the query ‘is the bedroom heater
on?’ into a telephone, initiating a query command to which is
delivered to the appropriate port of the home automation
system. The automation system, in turn, returns a signal . . .
indicative of the status of the bedroom heater. This signal is
intercepted by the voice server, which may translate the signal
into automated speech so that the authorized user hears ‘On’ or
‘Off’

Spec. ¶ 31.

Funk’s paragraph 31 disclosure is an extension of the disclosures of
the remainder of its specification, which is concerned with receiving voice
commands and interpreting them in order to control various home
automation systems. Funk discloses (¶¶ 27–30) how voice inputs are
translated, i.e. mapped, to commands, which are then routed to the
appropriate port for execution. We find that Funk discloses mapping one or
more status queries in a device to corresponding voice format status queries.
Funk further discloses an example wherein a signal indicative of the
status of the bedroom heater is translated into automated speech that the
(human) user can understand (¶ 31). It is necessarily true that Funk’s device
inherently includes the means to translate, or map, the status response signal
to a voice format status response corresponding to the instantaneous status of
the device. Funk, therefore, inherently discloses mapping a set of status
responses to corresponding voice format status responses.
Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,313

6
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, and
11 under § 102 as being anticipated by Funk. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and 11, as well as that of dependent claims 2, 3, 5,
6, 8, and 12, not separately argued.
CLAIM 9
We do not agree with Appellant that Funk fails to disclose a
“networked or networkable device.” We agree with the Examiner that
Figure 2 of Funk, which illustrates Funk’s system for controlling a home
automation system by voice commands, illustrates a networkable device,
including publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) 80, provided with
program data that implements Appellant’s claimed method (Ans. 13). We
further observe that the communications network 108 disclosed in
Appellant’s specification may be embodied as a GSM mobile network, or as
a copper wire or optical fiber telephone network (Spec. 5).
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 under § 102
over Funk, and we sustain the rejection.
CLAIM 10
We do not agree with Appellant that Funk fails to disclose a computer
readable medium provided with program data that, when executed on a
networked or networkable device, implements Appellant’s claimed method
(App. Br. 13–14). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Funk discloses
such a computer readable medium (Ans. 14), including one or more of local
memory 208, DSP 205, and parsing logic 210 (Fig. 3).
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10 under
§ 102 over Funk, and we sustain the rejection.

Appeal 2012-004991
Application No. 11/913,313

7
CONCLUSIONS
1. Claim 11 is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.
2. Funk discloses mapping a set of one or more status queries in a
device, and mapping a set of status responses for each of said status queries.
3. Funk discloses mapping status queries to voice format status
queries, and mapping status responses to voice format status responses.
4. Funk discloses a networked or networkable device.
5. Funk discloses a computer readable medium provided with program
data that may be executed on a networked or networkable device.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh