Russell Speight. Vanblon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2019

14097878 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2019)

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.
14/097,878 12/05/2013 Russell Speight VanBlon RPS920130148USNP(710.283) 9416
58127 7590 07/15/2019
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
COLUCCI, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, JON WAYNE HEIM,
JONATHAN GAITHER KNOX, PETER HAMILTON WETSEL, and
SUZANNE MARION BEAUMONT
____________
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878
Technology Center 2600
____________
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and LINZY T.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention recognizes speech by learning vocabulary
adaptively. In one aspect, after identifying a word based on received voice
input, an equivalent is selected and an action taken based on that equivalent.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lenovo Singapore PTE
LTD. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

2
Feedback is then received from a user regarding the equivalent to update
selections based on the feedback. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 32–39.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, via an audio receiver of an information handling
device, user voice input from a user;
accessing, using a processor, a user profile associated with
the user;
identifying, using a processor, a first word based on the
user voice input, wherein the first word is associated with a first
action;
accessing, using the processor, a word association data
store associated with the user profile;
selecting, using the processor, an equivalent to the first
word, wherein the equivalent is based on an association of the
first word to a second word within the word
association data store;
committing an action based on the equivalent;
thereafter receiving feedback input from the user
regarding the action committed based on the equivalent; and
updating the selecting based on the feedback for future
actions, wherein the updating comprises associating a second
action, different from the first action, with the equivalent to the
first word and storing the association in the word association data
store.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3–4.2

2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
21, 2018 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 18, 2018
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 17, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1–7, 9, and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 1033 as unpatentable over Phillips (US 2011/0066634 A1; published Mar.
17, 2011), Leydon (US 2014/0229155 A1; published Aug. 14, 2014), and
Byrne (US 2011/0301955 A1; published Dec. 8, 2011). Ans. 4–13.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Phillips and Davis (US 2013/0159413 Al; published June
20, 2013).4 Ans. 13–14.

THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that the recited user profile lacks written
description support. Ans. 4, 14–15. Appellants, however, contend that
although the Specification does not recite the term “user profile” explicitly,
the disclosed data store is nonetheless identical to a conventional user profile
because the data store may be (1) user-specific; (2) comprise user-specific
content, namely user-specific vocabulary terms; and (3) require user
identification to access the content. App. Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 20–21.

ISSUE
Under § 112(a), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, and
20 by finding that the recited subject matter fails to comply with the written

3 Although Appellants characterize the Examiner’s rejections as “§ 102
rejections” (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 23), the prior art rejections are actually
obviousness rejections under § 103.
4 Claim 10 depends from claim 9 that was rejected over Phillips, Leydon,
and Byrne. See Ans. 4. Although the Examiner omits the Leydon and
Byrne references in rejecting dependent claim 10, Appellants do not contest
this omission. See App. Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 21–23. Accordingly, we treat
the Examiner’s error in this regard as harmless.
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

4
description requirement? This issue turns on whether Appellants’ original
disclosure conveys with reasonable clarity to ordinarily skilled artisans that
Appellants possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date.

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting, as do the Examiner and Appellants, that the
Specification does not use the term “user profile” explicitly. Accord Ans.
14; App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 21 (acknowledging this omission). The question,
then, is whether the functionality of the disclosed data store—an element
that is said to be identical to the recited user profile (see App. Br. 16–17;
Reply Br. 20–21)—reasonably conveys to ordinarily skilled artisans that
Appellants possessed the recited user profile when the application was filed.
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the original disclosure
reasonably satisfies this requirement. To be sure, claim 1 recites accessing
not only a user profile, but also a word association data store—a separate
and distinct element from the user profile. Therefore, Appellants’
contention that the disclosed data store is identical to the recited user profile
(App. Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 20–21) essentially conflates these two distinct
elements in the claim.
Nonetheless, we find the relied-upon passages in the Specification,
namely paragraphs 32 to 34, sufficient to show possession of the recited user
profile. The Specification’s paragraph 32 describes an embodiment of the
invention that can adaptively learn user-specific vocabulary in terms of
commands given a particular word’s identification. This user-specific
learning may be shared by, for example, updating a shared data store
regarding various word interpretations such that other users can use the
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

5
learned commands by, for example, cloud shared access to a data store
containing various associations. Spec. ¶ 32. Thus, the user-specific learned
commands may be accessed by the same user by, for example, identifying
himself or herself to the device being used so that the device can access the
shared data store. Id. The learned commands can also be stored locally on
the device itself. Id.
Paragraphs 33 and 34 further describe accessing a data store of word
associations and determining whether there is a known association such that
a particular word in a command, such as the word “close” in the command
“close web browser,” can be interpreted as “minimize” for a particular user,
and the command executed accordingly.
The clear import of this functionality is that these word associations
are tailored to particular users based on their specific vocabulary and
interpretations in the context of executable commands. Therefore, this
functionality reasonably conveys possession of a user profile as the term is
understood in the art. According to an electrical engineering dictionary, a
“user profile” is “[a] set of preferences, settings, authorizations, email
addresses, and the like, which is stored for each user of a multiuser system.”
Steven M. Kaplan, WILEY ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING
DICTIONARY 828 (2004) (“Wiley EE Dictionary”). Although user-specific
content in the disclosed data store can be shared with others, this content is
nonetheless stored such that it is only accessible to the user via user
identification. See Spec. ¶ 32. This functionality, then, enables a particular
user to interpret a certain term according to their preference—a preference
consistent with the user-specific learned data in the data store. For example,
a particular user may want to interpret the term “close” as “minimize” so
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

6
that a command to “close the browser” minimizes the browser instead of
closing it. See Spec. ¶¶ 32–34.
That this content can be shared is not dispositive here, for at least the
user who created the shared vocabulary still accesses a user profile, namely
a set of preferences and settings, consistent with user-specific data that they
created. See Spec. ¶ 32 (noting that the user-specific learned commands can
be accessed by the same user who created them after the user is identified to
the device that accesses the data store). That other users can access this
user-specific data means that they, too, access a user profile consistent with
their settings and preferences associated with this stored content.
To the extent that the Examiner interprets the term “user profile” as
requiring something different (or more restrictive) than that indicated by the
definition noted above (see Ans. 15), such an interpretation is problematic
on this record. Not only does the Examiner fail to substantiate such an
interpretation, it is not commensurate with the commonly understood
meaning of “user profile” in the art which is defined, quite broadly, as
merely “[a] set of preferences, settings, authorizations, email addresses, and
the like, which is stored for each user of a multiuser system.” See Wiley EE
Dictionary at 828.
To be sure, a description that merely renders the invention obvious
does not satisfy the written description requirement under § 112. Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
banc) (citations omitted). This requirement, however, does not demand any
particular form of disclosure or require a verbatim recitation. Id. Here,
despite not reciting a “user profile” explicitly, given the broad meaning of
the term as understood in the art, we find the original disclosure reasonably
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

7
conveys possession of accessing a user profile as claimed, at least with
respect to the user’s settings and preferences associated with word
association data in the data store.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1, and (2) independent claims 11 and 20 that recite
commensurate limitations.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PHILLIPS, LEYDON, AND
BYRNE

Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Phillips discloses
receiving user voice input from a user; (2) accessing a user profile; (3)
identifying a first word based on the user voice input, where the first word is
associated with a first action; (4) accessing a word association data store
associated with the user profile; and (5) committing an action based on an
equivalent. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner acknowledges that Phillips does not
(1) select an equivalent to the first word; (2) receive feedback regarding the
action committed based on the equivalent; and (3) update the selected based
on the feedback for future actions, but cites Leydon for teaching these
features. Ans. 6–7. The Examiner also acknowledges that the
Phillips/Leydon system does not (1) associate a different second action with
the equivalent to the first word, and (2) store the association in the data
store, but cites Byrne for teaching those features. Ans. 7–8. In light of these
collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been
obvious. Ans. 4–8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to (1) articulate a reason why
ordinarily skilled artisans would have combined the references; (2) provide
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

8
an evidentiary basis for such a finding; and (3) provide a satisfactory
explanation for a motivation to combine the references that includes an
express and rational connection with the evidence presented. App. Br. 17–
18; Reply Br. 22. Appellants add that the Examiner’s reliance on Byrne is
misplaced because Byrne associates a different command with the same
action, unlike the claimed invention that associates a different action with
the same command, nor does Byrne differentiate particular users and their
associated actions. App. Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 22–23.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Phillips, Leydon, and Byrne collectively would have taught or
suggested the recited updating comprises associating a second action,
different from the first action, with the equivalent to the first word (“the
second action association limitation”)?
(2) Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the particular
teachings of Phillips and Leydon is undisputed. Rather, as noted above, this
dispute turns solely on the references’ combinability and the Examiner’s
reliance on Byrne for teaching the second action association limitation.
Turning to claim 1, the claim recites, in pertinent part, selecting an
equivalent to the first word, where the equivalent is based on an association
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

9
of the first word to a second word in the data store. Our emphasis on the
term “an” underscores that the limitation is not limited to selecting only one
equivalent, but encompasses selecting multiple equivalents given
Appellants’ explicit definition of the term “an” as “one or more.” See Spec.
19, ¶ 7.5
Given this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Byrne for at least suggesting associating a different second action with the
equivalent to the first word, where the equivalent can be plural equivalents.
In Byrne, after a user speaks a phrase, such as “Drive to New York City,”
the term “Drive to” is parsed and compared to a list of known phrases.
Byrne ¶ 17. If no match is found, the system determines whether the term
“Drive to” is similar to known phrases such as “Directions to” and
“Navigate to” and, if so, displays a list of selectable actions corresponding to
those phrases. Id. The displayed list may include, for example, a link
labeled “Directions to New York” that, when selected, launches a map
application illustrating directions from the device’s current location to New
York. Id. The list may also include a link labeled “Navigate to New York”
that, when selected, launches a Global Position System (GPS) application
that provides turn-by-turn directions from the device’s current location to
New York. Id.

5 Because the Specification renumbers various paragraphs, certain paragraph
numbers are duplicated, thus rendering pinpoint citations to particular
paragraph numbers problematic on this record. Compare Spec. 1–3
(identifying paragraphs 1 to 9), with Spec. 16–19 (renumbering paragraphs
after paragraph 39 as paragraphs 1 to 9). We, therefore, refer to the second
instance of paragraph 7 with its corresponding page for clarity.

Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

10
In the Answer, the Examiner maps the recited first word to the phrase
“Drive to” in Byrne’s paragraph 17 and, notably, finds that the known
phrases “Directions to” and “Navigate to” are equivalents to the first word.
See Ans. 16 (finding that the phrases “Directions to” and “Navigate to” are
first and second equivalent candidates, respectively). As the Examiner
explains, the recited “first action” corresponds to the illustrated list of
directions or map, and the recited “second action” corresponds to the GPS
application. Ans. 16–17.
Given the scope and breadth of the claim language, nothing in the
claim precludes the Examiner’s findings in this regard, for Byrne at least
suggests associating a second action, namely launching a GPS application,
with an equivalent to the first word, namely the equivalent “Navigate to”
phrase. See Byrne ¶ 17. As noted above, this second action differs from the
first action that launches a map application illustrating directions responsive
to the “Directions to New York” link. See id. Although these actions
correspond to different equivalents, namely the phrases “Directions to” and
“Navigate to,” respectively, nothing in the claim precludes these multiple
equivalents as noted previously. To the extent Appellants contend
otherwise, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. Therefore, we find unavailing Appellants’ contention that Byrne
associates a different command with the same action, unlike the claimed
invention that associates a different action with the same command (App.
Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 22–23), for this argument is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Likewise, Appellants’ contention that Byrne does
not differentiate particular users and their associated actions (App. Br. 19;
Reply Br. 23) is also unavailing for similar reasons.
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

11
Lastly, despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br.
17–18; Reply Br. 22), we find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion as indicated
in the rejection (Ans. 5–8) and in the response to arguments (Ans. 17).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–7, 9, and 11–20 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10.
Ans. 13–14. Because this rejection is not argued separately with
particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons
previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, and 20 under § 112(a),
but did not err in rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–21 under § 103.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–21.
Because the rejection of each appealed claim is affirmed on at least one of
the grounds specified in the Office Action from which the appeal was taken,
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–21 is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
Appeal 2018-007638
Application 14/097,878

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Notice of References Cited
Application/Control No.
14/097,878
Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No. 2018-007638
Examiner Art Unit
2658 Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document NumberCountry Code-Number-Kind Code DateMM-YYYY Name CPC Classification US Classification
A US-
B US-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document NumberCountry Code-Number-Kind Code DateMM-YYYY Country Name CPC Classification
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
U
V
W
X
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20170303
Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical & Electronics Engineering Dictionary 828 (2004) ("Wiley EE Dictionary")
ffi&@@
WILE,Y
ELECTRICAL
ELE,CTRONICS
E,NGINE,E,RING
DICTIOI{ARY
STEVEN M. KAPLAN
PRE
Liopl.right O 200,1 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
l,flirl.q by John Wiley & Sons. rnc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Puhlished simuhaneorrsly irr (
,anada.
No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, storecl in a retrieval system or transmittecr in any form or byany nleans' erectronic. meclalicll, photocopying. ,".o.ding, scaming or otherwise, excepr as permitted
;:.]|ilffi?,],:"ti:il:* reze unitea sta].'i"pv.igr,,a.l *i-,r,",,.i,r,".?Jprior written
Copyri grr t c r.u.",." c",*-o
:,Ilf
y,Jj:""lffi Hl,XiffiIll,fff H;g:l; l;;:mf.",l#,u_,8600' or on the web at www copyright com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressecl
:|ff lXl]].ilIi:ffi**t John wley a s"*, in..,'r r r River Street, H";;;;, ,u, ororo, (201) 7.18-
Limit of Liabilit-v/Disclaimer of warranty: while the publisher and author har.e used their best efforts inprcparing this book, they make no representation o. r.iu.iurti., with respect to the accuracv orcomplereness of the contents of this book uno ,p".iri"uirf discraim any impried *u.ruo,,L'J#,,erc'a,tabirity or fitness for a particurar pr.p;r.. N;;;.ranty may be
"r*or.d
o..rt",riJJirf .r.,represcntatives or written sales materials. ih" aauice unJr,.u,.gi., contained herein ,ray not be suitabrefor your srtuation. you shourd consult with a pr;fes;j*r] irr... appropriate. Neirher the pubrisher norauthor.shall be liable for anv llsy of profit;d;;;;;ercial damages, i,cluding but not limited tospecial. incidental, consequential, or other damag"..-
-."
For general intbrmation on our other products and services please contact our customer care DepartmentwitlrintlieLl.s ar8TT-762-297't,outslderh.u.s
".;i;:;rr-anrrorfax3ri-572-4002.
,]]il.lJ[: :*]i;iii ,,:,J::,Hl"rJfff of erectronic formats. some contenr that appears in print. howe'er.
Library oJ' Congress Cataroging-in-pubrication Data is avuilabre.
Kapl::r. Ster-en M.
\Viley Electrical and Electronir:s Engineering Dictionary
tsBN 0-471-4022.+-9
I']nnted in the United States ofArlerica.
10987654.1 21
user-machine interface 828
whrch just the network or network resource requires a pass-
word. User-level security is appropriate, for instance, when
authorized users do not necessarily have the same privileges'
user-machine interl'ace The interface, such as controls, be-
lween a user and a machine, Also called human-machine
interface.
user name Same as username.
User Netrvork Interface Same as UNI.
user profile A set of preferences, settings, authorizations,
email addresses, and the like, which is stored for each user
of a multiuser system.
user session l. A period during which a user is connected to a
computer or communications network. AIso, all the activi-
ties which take place during such a session. Also called ses-
sion (1). 2. A period during which a user utilizes an applica-
tion or program.
IJser-to-Network Interface Sarne as UNI.
userid Abbreviation of user identification.
userlD Abbreviation of user identification
username Also spelled user name. l. A name whicli identi-
fies a specific uscr accessing a computer, network, or other
service. Such a name may be selected by the user, and usu-
ally has an associated password. 2. A user-chosen name
utilizcd lor comt.ttunicatiolts with other users in chats, in-
stant messaging, and the like. A screen name may be a user
name. a real nalne, or u'hatever occurs to a user at a given
instant. Also called screen name.
USRT Abbreviation of Universal Synchronous Receiver
Transmitter. A chip or circuit utilized for the synchronous
transmission and reception of data via a computer serial
por1. lt converts bytes, of other data units, into serial bits,
and vice versa.
UT Abbreviation of Universal time.
UTC Abbreviation of Universal Time Coordinated, and
Coordinated Universal Time.
utility A program that perfom,s tasks pertaining to the man-
agcment of computer rcsources. For instance, such pro-
grams nray perform diagnostic functions, or handle the man-
agement of files. Also called or utility program, or com-
Puter utilitY.
utilitl' box A location or enclosure rvhich is suitable for hous-
ing or storing electrical or conlntunications components, cir-
cuits, devices, equipment, materials, cables, connections,
and the like. Such a box, for instance. may be poftable' or
might be recessed into a rvall or floor'
utility program Same as utilitY.
UTP Abbreviation of unshielded trvisted pair.
UTP Ethernet Abbreviation of unshielded twisted pair
Ethernet. Ethernet, such as lOOOBaseCX or 100Base-TX,
which uses unshielded trvisted pairs
uucoding A program which converts files in an 8-bit format
into 7-bit ASCIT characters, for transmission over the lnter-
net. Files are uuencoded prior to transmission, and uude-
coded upon reccptiotl. This allou's non-text files, such as
images, to be sent. Widely utilized for sending email at-
tachments.
UUcoding Same as uucoding,
"+;i*il}'*[ffi"**ffi{
:[#i,, i:ffi *:: :".",".:C
UV absorption spectroscopy Abbreviation of f{
absorption sPectroscoPY
UV absorption spectrum Abbreviation of ultr:
sorption sPectrum.
UV astronomy Abbreviation of ultraviolet astron': T
UV band Abbreviation ofultraviolet band'
UV detection Abbreviation of ultraviolet detectior'
UV detector Abbreviation of ultraviolet detector
UV emission Abbreviation of ultraviolet emission
UV energy Abbreviation of ultraviolet energl''
UV fitter Abbreviation ofultraviolet filter.
UV imaging Abbreviation of ultraviolet imaging
UV lamp Abbreviation of ultraviolet lamp.
UV laser Abbreviation ofultraviolet laser.
UV light Abbreviation ofultraviolet light.
UV photoelectron spectroscopy Abbreviation o: u::*r rmulr'
photoelectron sPectroscoPY.
UV radiation Abbreviation of ultraviolet radiatior'
UV radiometer Abbreviation of ultraviolet radiom:'r'
UV range Abbreviation ofultraviolet range.
UV rays Abbreviation ofultraviolet rays.
UV region Abbreviation ofultraviolet region
UV sensor Abbreviation of ultraviolet sensor.
UV signal Abbreviation of ultraviolet signal.
UV spectrometer Abbreviation of ultraviolet specll": -'4l'
UV spectrometry Abbreviation of ultraviolet specl': -r::'"
UV spectrophotometer Abbreviation of ultrar iolet i:" -'
photometer.
UV spectrophotometry Abbreviation of ultraviole: ::""*:'
photometrY.
UV spectroscopy Abbreviation of ultraviolet spect': !: ::
UV spectrum Abbreviation olultraviolet spectrum
UV therapy Abbreviation of ultraviolet therap)
UV rvaves Abbreviation of ultraviolet waves.
UVA Abbreviation of ultraviolet A Electromaqr':: : "rr"
tion in the ultraviolet region which corresponoi :: '
lengths ranging from approximately 320 nm l: :r:'
mately 400 nm, though the defined interval varies
UVB Abbreviation of ultraviolet B. Electromagr:: : -r
tion in the ultraviolet region rvhich correspond' :'
lengths lrom approximately 290 nm to approxlr: '
nm, though the defined interval varies.
UVC Abbreviation of ultraviolet C. Electromagr::: - -'
tion in the ultraviolet region which corresponds :- '
lengths from approximately 200 rrm to approrir:: '
nm, though the defined interval varies
{bbreviation of velocitY'
Symbol for voltage.
l. Svmbol lor volt. 2' Chemicel
f. Wittin the YUV color mod'
diff.r"n"" signals. The other G U f,
l. Svmbol fot voltage' 2' S1t&t
potentiat. 3. SYmbol for volur-
-antenna A center-fed antenna s
arranged so as to form the sluPc o1
vee antenna.
Band 1. ln communications' !-t
.*ienalng from 40'00 to 75'00 G
IEEE. This conesPonds t9 rlzrt
i.5 ,, ,o 4 mm, resPectivelY'
band of radio frequencies ertd
This corresPonds to wavelenglt3
to 5.4 mm, resPectivelY'
i+hio A chip that is installed in e'l
box, or similar device. rxhich P
eru..ing based on a rating' Tk
Iontent viewed through TV1 s
corded on DVDs. Although V<
name for this circuit, it was m
violence chiP.
5 connection Also sPelled vtc
oDen-delta connection' t' Thc
formers so as to form the sh4c t
the combination ofthree to foro
connection of two circuit elefits
form the shaPe of a letter Y' as I
ofthree to form a delta connectit
lIF converter Abbreviation of
verter.
YIm Abbreviation of volts Per r
r-mail Abbreviation ofvideo -'
r-sync Abbreviation of verticel r
zation.
r'.17 An ITU standard Pertaii
rates ofuP to 14,400 bPs'
r'.21 An lTt r standard Pertaini4
Eansmission rates of uP to 3ml
1-.22 An ITU standard Pertaini4
transmission rates of up to l'2!lll
1.22bis An ITU standard Pertj
with transmission rates of rPb
V.23 An ITU standard Pertaini4
transmission rates of uP to l-!
75 bPs uPstream'
1'.24 An ITU standard similarn
\-.25 An ITU slandard Peftairi
l'.26 An ITU standard Peruini
fiansmission rates of uP to A{
75 bPs uPstream, while using I
\'.27 An ITU standard Penain
fansmission rates of uP 4'S
lines.
, \'.27ter An ITU standard PCrt
, with transmission rates of ry
: fax'
I r'.zS An ITU standard Pertail
I transmission rates of uP 96
I lin.r. Used bY GrouP 3 faxo
' t1il
uudecode l. A program rvhich performs uudecoding. 2. To UXGA Abbreviation of Ultra XGA. rvhich in tur: ,
perform uudecoding. breviation of Uttra Extended Graphics Anay .A .
uudecoding The decocling of filcs which have undergone standard providing for a screen resolution of 16
uuencotling. This is done upon reccption. pixels'