Ex Parte Willmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2015

12301309 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/301,309 11/18/2008 Richard Willmann
24737 7590 01/05/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2006P00530WOUS 7406
EXAMINER
ALBERTALLI, BRIAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD WILLMANN, GERD LANFERMANN, and
DIETER GELLER
Appeal2014-002252
Application 12/301,309
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002252
Application 12/301,309
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-8, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a computer-based system that
monitors and automatically assesses speech quality of a patient, and uses
feedback of improvement or deterioration of speech quality. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system for training a dysarthric speaker, comprising
- a first computing module to automatically determine a speech
quality measure for an input utterance of the speaker for at least one
training element,
- a second computing module to automatically compare the
speech quality measure with at least one previous speech quality
measure of the speaker related to the at least one training element,
and
- a feedback module to automatically provide a biofeedback to
the speaker based upon this comparison.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Oster (Anne-Marie Oster, Clinical Applications of Computer-
Based Speech Training for Children with Hearing Impairment, 4TH INT'L
CONF. ON SPOKEN LANGUAGE PROCESSING (ICSLP) PROC. 157-60 (1996)).
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Oster and Shpiro (US 5,487,671; Jan. 30, 1996).
2
Appeal2014-002252
Application 12/301,309
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection-Oster
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9--10; see also
Reply Br. 5-6) that Oster does not describe the limitation "a second
computing module to automatically compare the speech quality measure
with at least one previous speech quality measure of the speaker related to
the at least one training element," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the child's "best production" of Oster, which
is stored as a target, in addition to Figures 1--4 of Oster, corresponds to the
limitation "a second computing module to automatically compare the speech
quality measure with at least one previous speech quality measure of the
speaker related to the at least one training element." (Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 2-3.) We do not agree.
Oster relates to computer-based visual speech training (Abstract), in
particular, the "Speech Viewer" training system(§ 1, para. 2). Oster explains
that the Speech Viewer training system allows a user to input, store, and
analyze speech(§ 2, para. 1) and that "a child's own 'best production'
should be stored as a target to establish a new and more correct behaviour
through frequent training" (id. at para. 2). With respect to a recommended
training strategy(§ 3), Oster explains that "[a] split screen offers an exact
comparison of a child's production with a model of the therapist's correct
production" ( § 3 .2, para. 1; see also § 1.1, para. 6). Furthermore, Figures 1-
4 of Oster illustrate the split screen of the therapist's model of correctly
produced voicing contrast, as well as an attempt by the child.
Although Oster explains that a child's own "best production" should
be stored as a target(§ 2, para. 2), Oster does not expressly disclose the
3
Appeal2014-002252
Application 12/301,309
limitation "a second computing module to automatically compare the speech
quality measure with at least one previous speech quality measure of the
speaker related to the at least one training element." Instead, Oster explains
that the child's production is compared with a model of the therapist's
correct production, rather than the child's own "best production." (§ 3.2,
para. 1; see also § 1.1, para. 6.) Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that "[i]n Oster, one part of the display is for the child's speech
while the other part of the display is for the therapist's speech" and
[b ]y displaying the current speech pattern of the child below the
supposedly optimal speech pattern of the therapist, it cannot
reasonably be concluded that this display amounts to a
comparison of the child's speech pattern for an utterance
against that same child's speech pattern for the same utterance
recorded previously.
(App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 6.)
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Oster describes the
limitation "a second computing module to automatically compare the speech
quality measure with at least one previous speech quality measure of the
speaker related to the at least one training element."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2, 4, and 6 depend from independent
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 7 and 8 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 7 and 8 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-002252
Application 12/301,309
§ 103 Rejection-Oster and Shpiro
Claims 3 and 5 depend from independent claim 1. Shpiro was cited
by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 3 and 5.
(Final Act. 5-6.) However, the Examiner's application of Shpiro does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of Oster.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 is reversed. 1
REVERSED
dw
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
the recitation of "a computer readable medium" in independent claim 8
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57
(Fed. Cir. 2007) ("A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen's is not a
'process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.' ... [T]hus, such
a signal cannot be patentable subject matter."); see also MPEP § 2106 (I)
("Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the
statutory categories ... [include] transitory forms of signal transmission (for
example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se.")).
5