Ex Parte Theimer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 2009

09847145 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG THEIMER
____________

Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: October 30, 2009
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-22, which are all of the pending claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

2

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for controlling a system,
especially an electrical and/or electronic system comprising at least one
application device. Control information is interpreted in accordance with
available application devices and an application device is controlled in
accordance with the result of the interpretation. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. Method for controlling a system, especially an electrical and/or
electronic system comprising a plurality of application devices, in
which:
control information is received from a user independently of a
permanently predetermined menu structure;
the received control information is identified;
an instruction of the control information input is interpreted in
accordance with available ones of the application devices by checking
whether the control information is known, unambiguous and complete
for one of the application devices;
in case of ambiguity of the control information, the user is
signaled to enter further control information relating to a selection of
possible applications to which the ambiguous control information can
be applied until the totality of inputted control information is
unambiguous; and
an application device is controlled in accordance with the result
of the interpretation.
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

3

Prior Art
Houser U.S. 5,774,859 Jun. 30, 1998
Bush U.S. 6,397,186 B1 May 28, 2002
Osawa G.B. 2,275,800 A Sep. 7, 1994

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8 and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bush and Houser.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bush, Houser, and Osawa.

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that “ambiguous control information” excludes
a user’s spoken command that can be interpreted as either of two different
commands as taught by the combination of Bush and Houser?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Bush
1. Bush discloses a wireless, programmable, sound-activated and
voice-operated remote control transmitter used to add hands-free speech
control operation to a plurality of remotely controlled appliances
manufactured by various manufacturers, each of which is normally
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

4
controlled with one or more signals from an associated remote control
transmitter. Abstract.
2. The remote control transmitter has the capability of transmitting
multiple control signals, such as infrared signals, to one or more appliances
in response to a single voice command by the user. Such macro programs
may be programmed by the user during a product setup process. For
example, a user may desire that in response to the voice command “Video,”
the transmitter issues commands to turn on the TV power, wait for the TV to
warm up until it is ready to receive control signals, set the channel to “3,”
select the VCR for control, turn on the VCR, and execute the VCR’s play
function. As another example, the user may desire that in response to the
user-trained voice command “Sports,” the transmitter issues commands to a
TV to turn to channel 123. Col. 5, ll. 19-32.

Houser
3. Houser discloses a system for controlling a device such as a
television and for controlling access to broadcast information such as video,
audio, and/or text information. Abstract.
4. The processor uses the phonemic definitions and speech
recognition software stored in memory to compare the spoken sounds or
words with the phonemic data of the vocabulary. If the comparison results in
recognition of a command, a television is appropriately controlled. If the
comparison does not result in recognition of the command, one or more of
several actions occurs. An indication may simply be provided to the user that
the command was not recognized and the user may be prompted to repeat
the command or to use the keypad to implement the command (if possible).
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

5
If a command is repeated nonsensically, for example, “GOTO CHANNEL
SIXTEEN” is repeated twice in a subscription television system in which
channel sixteen is not a valid channel, a subscriber terminal unit may assume
that a misrecognition occurred the first time and that the user actually wants
to tune to a similar-sounding channel, such as channel 60. If the top two
recognition options have comparable likelihoods, the user is informed what
the two options are and is asked to select one over the other. If a user has
frequently spoken a specific command, for example, “GOTO CHANNEL
SIXTEEN” but has apparently selected a less frequently accessed command,
such as “GOTO CHANNEL SIXTY,” the more commonly spoken
command may be implemented. Col. 19, ll. 27-52.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Our reviewing court
has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments
described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be
narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “An
essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise,
clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

6
scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the device of Houser teaches the claim 1
recitation of “in the case of ambiguity of the control information, the user is
signaled to enter further control information relating to a selection of
possible applications to which the ambiguous control information can be
applied until the totality of inputted control information is unambiguous”
(Ans. 4, 12). Appellant contends that the limitation is not suggested by the
combination of Bush and Houser (App. Br. 14).
According to Appellant, the device of Houser compares words spoken
by a user to phonemic data. The device then identifies similar-sounding
commands, informs the user about the identified commands, and asks the
user to select one command over the other. Therefore, according to
Appellant, the device of Houser, in dealing with an ambiguity of the control
information, performs a set of steps “which differs markedly from that of the
presently claimed subject matter.” See App. Br. 16-17.
Appellant cites several paragraphs of the Specification that use the
word “ambiguous” in such a way that, allegedly, distinguishes this word
from the teaching of Houser (App. Br. 15-16). Appellant submits that an
input is “ambiguous” only when an input can be executed in a number of
applications, is associated with a number of functions in an application, or
can be associated with control instructions concerning different applications
(id.).
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

7
However, Appellant does not point to an express definition of the
word “ambiguous” in the Specification that limits its meaning to the
provided examples of “ambiguous” control information.
Appellant, in the Reply Brief (at 2), contends that the term
“recognition” must be distinguished from the term “ambiguous.” To support
this contention, Appellant again refers to examples of “ambiguous” given in
the Specification. However, none of the examples cited by Appellant
provides an express definition of “ambiguous” that excludes a user’s spoken
command that can be interpreted as either of two different commands. The
Examiner finds that Houser discloses this type of ambiguous control
information (Ans. 4, 12). Appellant has not provided a definition of the
word “ambiguous,” in the claim or in the Specification, that precludes the
Examiner’s finding.
We therefore conclude that Appellant has failed to persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima face case for obviousness of the subject matter of
claim 1 over the combination of Bush and Houser.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has failed to show that “ambiguous control information”
excludes a user’s spoken command that can be interpreted as either of two
different commands as taught by the combination of Bush and Houser.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bush and Houser is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-001170
Application 09/847,145

8
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bush, Houser, and Osawa 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

PERMAN & GREEN, LLP
99 HAWLEY LANE
STRATFORD CT 06614