Goldhor et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 16, 1998

08096686 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 16, 1998)

Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,686
1 Application for patent filed July 23, 1993. According to
the appellants, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/855,461, filed March 19, 1992, now Patent No. 5,231,670,
which is a continuation of Application No. 07/057,332, filed
June 1, 1987, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RICHARD S. GOLDHOR, JOHN F. DOOLEY, CHRISTOPHER N. HUME,
JAMES P. LERNER, BRIAN D. WILSON
____________
Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,6861
____________
HEARD: June 8, 1998
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 21, 22
and 24 through 37.
Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,686
2 As indicated by the examiner (Answer, pages 1 and 2), the
rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been
withdrawn.
The disclosed invention relates to a system for generating
text in response to a succession of audio signals representing
spoken input events provided by a user.
Claim 21 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
21. A system for generating text in response to a
succession of audio signals representing spoken input events
provided by a user, said system comprising:
means for comparing each spoken input event with a plurality of
tokens representing vocabulary words thereby to identify a
plurality of candidate tokens which may correspond to the spoken
input event, each candidate being scored as to likelihood of
match;
computer implemented means for generating and storing, for each
spoken input event, a data record which includes:
the identity of the best matching candidate token;
the identity of the correct candidate; and
data placing the chronology of the data record relative
other data records in the database;
thereby to generate a dictation event database useful for
improving recognizer accuracy by learning a user’s speech
behavior.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Baker 4,866,778 Sept. 12, 1989
(filed Aug. 11, 1986)
Claims 21, 22 and 24 through 372 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baker.
Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,686
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In response to the examiner’s obviousness determination
(Answer, pages 2 through 5), appellants argue that Baker does not
disclose ‘means for generating and storing . . . a data record’
because “the vocabulary language model and word models are data
structures which are stored prior to providing the speech
recognition functionality” (Brief, page 6), and that Baker does
not disclose a “historical database based on the successive
recognition events in a dictation session” (Brief, page 6).
To the extent that multiple candidates are identified in Baker
(Figures 26 and 27) as part of the recognition process,
appellants argue that “they are used only in permitting
correction of the current word and there is no suggestion of the
creation of a database wherein each record identifies the best or
most likely candidate and alternate candidates for each
recognition event” (Brief, page 6).
In Baker, the multiple candidates in display 478 (Figure 26)
are stored in memory before a “spoken input event,” and the only
“data record” that is created in Baker (column 18, lines 53
through 56) as a result of the “spoken input event” is the best
selected word (i.e., DEMONSTRATES) output 482. No other data is
stored in Baker to generate a historical “database” for
Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,686
successive recognition events. Accordingly, the stored “data
record” in Baker does not include data placing the chronology of
the data record relative other data records in the database
(claims 21, 22 and 24 through 34), data defining any “hierarchial
relationship” (Brief, page 7) to other similarly generated
records (claims 29 and 35 through 37), and a text event database
record (claims 30 through 37). In summary, the obviousness
rejection is reversed.
Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,686
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 21, 22 and
24 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1776
Application No. 08/096,686
Henry D. Pahl, Jr.
DIKE, BRONSTEIN, ROBERTS & CUSHMAN
130 Water Street
Boston, MA 02109
KWH/jrg
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 95-1776
Serial No. 08/096,686
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge BARRETT
Judge THOMAS
Received: 11 Jun 98
Typed: 11 Jun 98
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk: ____
Updated Monthly Report: ___