Robert W. Zopf et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 8, 2020

14606588 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
14/606,588 01/27/2015 Robert W. Zopf 5875.1820001 2407
49579 7590 01/08/2020
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
PRIFTI, AUREL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2186
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2020 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT W. ZOPF and BENGT J. BORGSTROM
____________________

Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–20.2 Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avago Technologies
General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appellant misstates that this is an appeal “from the final rejection of claims
1–21.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “Isolated Word Training and Detection.”
Spec., Title; id. ¶ 2 (Technical Field). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. An isolated word training system that comprises:
[A.] a hardware processor;
[B.] a hardware input device configured to receive at least one
audio input representation;
[C.] a recognition component executing on the hardware
processor, the recognition component configured to
generate a phoneme concatenation model of the at least one
audio input representation based on a phoneme
transcription; and
[D.] an adaptation component executing on the hardware
processor, the adaptation component configured to
generate a first word model of the at least one audio input
based on the phoneme concatenation model.

REFERENCES3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ganong US 2014/0278435 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Ravenscraft “How to Create a Custom Google
Now Command for Anything on
Android”
July 30, 2014

3 All citations herein to references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

3
REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Ganong. Final Act. 5–8.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this
rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
claims 2–7 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 8–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ganong and Ravenscraft. Final Act.
9–10.
Our decision herein as to claim 1 is determinative as to the rejection
of claims 8–16, 19, and 20. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we
do not address claims 8–16, 19, and 20 further herein.
We select claim 17 as representative for claims 17 and 18. Therefore,
except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claim 18 further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

4
A.
The Examiner finds:
As per claim 1, Ganong III et al. discloses an isolated
word training system that comprises:
an input component configured to receive at least one
audio input representation; [inter alia: microphone to receive
acoustic input; Figs 6-8]
a recognition component configured to generate a
phoneme concatenation model of the at least one audio input
representation based on a phoneme transcription;[] [inter alia:
VAD processing stage(s) of acoustic input for phoneme; par
0080-0083]
an adaptation component configured to generate a first
word model of the at least one audio input based on the phoneme
concatenation model. [inter alia: automatic speech recognition
(ASR) for acoustic input based on semantic content of speech:
par 0084-0090]
Final Act. 6 (emphasis added).
B.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 because:
At paragraphs 80-83, Ganong discloses a voice activity detection
(VAD) processing stage that uses stored phoneme models to
determine the likelihood that acoustic input includes speech. The
Examiner equates the claimed “phoneme concatenation model”
to the stored phoneme models disclosed by Ganong with respect
to this VAD processing stage.
The Examiner then cites to a second processing stage
embodiment described at paragraphs 84-90 as allegedly
disclosing the claimed “first word model.” (final Office Action,
p. 6.) Ganong discloses that this additional class of processing
stage uses a limited vocabulary to automatically recognize
speech in acoustic input. The Examiner equates the claimed “first
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

5
word model” to the limited vocabulary of words disclosed by
Ganong with respect to this automatic speech recognition
processing stage. . . .
Ganong never discloses that this limited vocabulary of
words is generated based on the stored phoneme models
disclosed by Ganong at paragraphs 80-83 like the claimed “first
word model” is generated based on the claim “phoneme
concatenation model” in the above noted claim feature.
Appeal Br. 6.
C.
The Examiner responds:
Ganong discloses the VAD processing evaluates whether
acoustic input from a user contains “phonemic content” (e.g.,
Characteristic of speech) by using “phoneme models” [par
0081]. Results from “phoneme analysis are propagated to ASR
processing stages” [par 0082] ASR processing stage(s) uses
VAD processing stages to further evaluate specifics
characteristic of the speech, such as, particular words spoken,
type of speaker [par 0084] to conclude whether a voice command
has been spoken [par. 85]. Ganong teaches the limited
vocabulary is built, learned or modified based on user’s behavior
(generation of the first word model) [par. 88]. Thus, it is clear
that Ganong teaches the limitation “generating a first word
model . . . based on the phoneme concatenation model[.]”
Ans. 9.
D.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, “[a]nticipation requires the
presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed
invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The requirement that the prior art
elements themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot
be “treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

6
part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their
meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[U]nless a reference discloses within
the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed
and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). For
a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either
expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed
arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either
expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings to the extent that we agree
Ganong describes generating a first word model of the at least one audio
input based on a phoneme model. Ganong ¶¶ 80–90, 140–47. However, we
agree with Appellant that the language of claim 1 requires a “concatenation”
relationship (i.e., linked together, as in a chain) between the phonemes of the
phoneme model (i.e., claim 1 requires a phoneme concatenation model), and
we disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning that Ganong at paragraphs 80–90
are sufficient to show such a “concatenation” relationship. Our concern is
that we find nothing in the Examiner’s reasoning that is sufficient to show a
“concatenation” relationship between the phonemes.
We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s arguments that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that
Ganong teaches, “a phoneme concatenation model,” as required by claim 1.
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

7
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to
support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 was anticipated by
Ganong. Because independent claim 8 and dependent claim 19 include
“phoneme concatenation model” limitations for which their § 103 rejection
relies on the same disclosure from Ganong as discussed above, we also
conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the
Examiner’s final conclusion that claims 8 and 19 were obvious at the time of
Appellant’s invention.
E.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
[I]ndependent claim 1 and independent claim[] 17, which
recite[s] a similar distinguishing feature, are not rendered
unpatentable over Ganong and Ravenscraft, alone or in
combination. Further, with respect to independent claim 17, it is
also unclear where Ganong or Ravenscraft teach or suggest a
user-specified wake-up phrase that is used to generate a user-
dependent word model at the electronic device.
Appeal Br. 7.As to Appellant’s assertions, we are unpersuaded.
Contrary to Appellant’s “similar distinguishing feature” assertion at page 7
of the Appeal Brief, claim 17 does not recite the “phoneme concatenation
model” distinguishing feature of claim 1. Thus, the “phoneme concatenation
model” argument of claim 1 is not commensurate with the scope of the claim
17 language. We do not find a “phoneme concatenation model” in claim 17.
Claim 17 is not explicitly so limited, nor does Appellant explain how claim
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

8
17 would be inherently so limited, nor do we find alternative language that
would similarly mandate the argued limitation.
As to Appellant’s above further contention, Appellant merely recites
the particular language of claim 17 and asserts the cited prior art reference
does not disclose the claim limitations. Without more, this fails to constitute
an argument on the merits. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–7 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 8–16, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 17 and 18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–16, 19, and 20 as being
unpatentable are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 as being unpatentable is
affirmed.
Appeal 2018-008548
Application 14/606,588

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–7 102 Ganong 1–7
8–20 103 Ganong, Ravenscraft 17, 18 8–16, 19,
20
Overall
Outcome

17, 18 1–16, 19,
20

AFFIRMED-IN-PART