Jill Fain. Lehman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2020

14842528 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/842,528 09/01/2015 Jill Fain Lehman 0260441 8866
63649 7590 04/08/2020
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
SHAH, BHARATKUMAR S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2020 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):
docketing@farjami.com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarjami@farjami.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JILL FAIN LEHMAN and RITA SINGH
Appeal 2018-008106
Application 14/842,528
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–19, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Disney Enterprises, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008106
Application 14/842,528

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to speech recognition of keywords in noisy
environments with multiple people speaking at the same time. Spec. 1:5–14.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A system for keyword recognition, the system comprising:
a microphone configured to receive an input speech;
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter configured to convert
the input speech from an analog form to a digital form and
generate a digitized speech;
a memory storing a keyword recognition application;
a hardware processor executing the keyword recognition
application to:
receive the digitized speech from the A/D
converter;
divide the digitized speech into a plurality of speech
segments having a first speech segment;
calculate a first probability of distribution of a first
keyword in the first speech segment;
determine that a first fraction of the first speech
segment includes the first keyword, in response to
comparing the first probability of distribution with a first
threshold associated with the first keyword;
calculate a second probability of distribution of a
second keyword in the first speech segment; and
determine that a second fraction of the first speech
segment includes the second keyword, in response to
comparing the second probability of distribution with a
second threshold associated with the second keyword.
Appeal 2018-008106
Application 14/842,528

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Name Number Date
Bapat US 9,373,321 B2 June 21, 2016
Braho US 7,865,362 B2 Jan. 4, 2011
Costa US 9,361,084 B1 June 7, 2016
Yamamoto US 2007/0168864 A1 July 19, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Costa, Braho, and Bapat. Final Act. 7.
Claims 2, 5, 8–10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Costa, Braho, Bapat, and Yamamoto. Final
Act. 13.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Costa and
Bapat teaches or suggests the “determine” and “calculate” limitations
emphasized above in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to combine Yamamoto with the other prior
art references for purposes of claim 2?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17
Claim 1 recites “determine that a first fraction of the first speech
segment includes the first keyword, in response to comparing the first
probability of distribution with a first threshold associated with the first
keyword” and “determine that a second fraction of the first speech segment
Appeal 2018-008106
Application 14/842,528

4
includes the second keyword, in response to comparing the second
probability of distribution with a second threshold associated with the
second keyword.”
The Examiner relies on Bapat for teaching or suggesting these
limitations. Ans. 6–72; Final Act. 5.
Bapat discloses an example involving “wake-up words from a user
(e.g., ‘Hello Kenichi’).” Bapat 3:33–34. Appellant argues that Figure 5 of
Bapat only shows phonemes for the first word “Hello” and nothing for the
second word “Kenichi,” therefore “[t]here is no disclosure in Bapat . . . that
the same segment has two fractions, one including Hello, and the other
including Kenichi.” Appeal Br. 9.
However, we agree with the Examiner that Bapat’s “Hello Kenichi”
example requires examining two words (or “fractions”) in a phrase (or
“segment”). Ans. 6. We also note that in addition to analyzing phonemes
within a single word, Bapat discloses “a confidence score is calculated for
. . . each word in the one or more wake-up words.” Bapat 8:10–12
(emphasis added). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Claim 1 further recites “calculate a first probability of distribution of a
first keyword in the first speech segment” and “calculate a second
probability of distribution of a second keyword in the first speech segment.”
Appellant argues that “Costa does not disclose, teach or suggest that
the probability of distribution is over a segment that includes a first fraction
and a second fraction. Rather, Costa generally states that probabilities of
particular phonemes are found depending upon the spoken utterances.”

2 We note that the Answer labels all pages as “Page 1.” Our page numbers
here count from 1 being the title page titled “EXAMINER’S ANSWER.”
Appeal 2018-008106
Application 14/842,528

5
Appeal Br. 11. However, the Examiner explains that “the cite[d] elements in
claim 1 is not taught by Costa but explicitly taught by Bapat.” Ans. 4 (citing
Bapat 9:60–63); Final Act. 2–3 (repeating some of the same text). Thus,
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection.
See also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 11–12; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 2, 5, 8–10, 12, 15, 18, and 19
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and Appellant argues that Yamamoto
does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 12. However, Appellant has not persuaded us of any deficiencies
for claim 1, as discussed above.
Appellant further argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not combine Yamamoto” with the other prior art references because
“Yamamoto is not related to speech recognition.” Appeal Br. 13. The
Examiner correctly points out, however, that Yamamoto expressly discloses
an example of speech recognition. Ans. 7 (citing Yamamoto ¶¶ 76–77).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and
claims 5, 8–10, 12, 15, 18, and 19, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 13; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-008106
Application 14/842,528

6
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected Statute References Affirmed Rev’d
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11,
13, 14, 16, 17
§ 103 Costa, Braho,
Bapat
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11,
13, 14, 16, 17

2, 5, 8–10, 12,
15, 18, 19
§ 103 Costa, Braho,
Bapat, Yamamoto
2, 5, 8–10, 12,
15, 18, 19

OVERALL 1–19
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED