Universal Electronics Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2021

2020001351 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021)

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.
15/785,803 10/17/2017 Jonathan Lim 81230.156US2 6076
34018 7590 08/03/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
GODBOLD, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2021 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN LIM
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Universal Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for voice-actuated
configuration of a controlling device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for configuring a controlling device to
command functional operations of a target appliance, the method
comprising:
receiving at a speech recognition engine voice data
indicative of at least a type for and a brand of the target appliance
whereupon the speech recognition engine uses the voice data
indicative of at least the type for and the brand of the target
appliance to identify within a library of codesets at least one
codeset that is cross-referenced to a phonetic representation of
the type for and a phonetic representation of the brand of the
target appliance; and
causing the at least one codeset to be provisioned to the
controlling device for use in commanding functional operations
of the target appliance.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
3
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Kimura US 5,247,580 Sept. 21, 1993
Harris US 7,944,370 B1 May 17, 2011
Gong US 2003/0149563 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Huang US 2009/0254778 A1 Oct. 8, 2009

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15,
22, 24
103(a) Huang, Gong
2–7, 12, 16–21, 25 103(a) Huang, Gong, Harris
10, 23 103(a) Huang, Gong, Kimura

OPINION2
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Appellant argues
while Gong - when considered in its entirety as required - may
disclose, teach, or suggest to one of skill in the art that it would

2 Because Appellant argues the claims collectively (see Appeal Br. 9–13),
our analysis here with reference to claim 1 is dispositive, and we do not
discuss the reaming claims further, except for our ultimate decision.
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
4
be desirable to modify Huang to include a speech recognition
engine in which phonetic representations are cross-referenced
to device in the drop-down listing of devices [that are caused to
be displayed by the system of Huang] to thereby allow the speech
recognition engine to identify which device within the drop-
down listing of devices is being selected by a user whereupon the
system of Huang will continue to use data indicative of the user
selection of a device within the drop-down listing of devices
(where the selection is made via the user voice input) to identify
a codeset that is to be provisioned to the controlling device,
nothing with Gong [which it is again noted is not directed to
remote controls] can be said to disclose, teach, or suggest to one
of skill in the art that it would be desirable to modify Huang to
include a speech recognition engine in which phonetic
representation of types for and phonetic representations of
brands of target appliances are cross-referenced to codesets to
thereby allow the speech recognition engine to use received
voice data indicative of at least a type for and a brand of the target
appliance to identify within a library of codesets at least one
codeset that is cross-referenced to a phonetic representation of
the type for and a phonetic representation of the brand of the
target appliance as claimed.
Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis and bracketed text in original).
The relevant limitation reads as follows:
receiving at a speech recognition engine voice data indicative of
at least a type for and a brand of the target appliance whereupon
the speech recognition engine uses the voice data indicative of at
least the type for and the brand of the target appliance to identify
within a library of codesets at least one codeset that is cross-
referenced to a phonetic representation of the type for and a
phonetic representation of the brand of the target appliance;
Id. at 7.
The Examiner finds “Huang functions by allowing a user to select a
codeset tor a device by selecting a manufacturer and model from drop down
menus [so], for Huang to function, the codsets must be cross-referenced to
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
5
the device manufacturer brand and model in order for the proper code sets to
be provisioned.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Gong teaches
using voice recognition to specify a manufacturer brand and
model to a computer. In Gong, a user may speak a
manufacturer’s brand in order to select a manufactures name
from a list (see 0045-47, and 0041 where the example is given
that a user speaks “Sony laptop superslim 505Z”. This is done
using a recognition grammar and vocabulary (see 0041) that in
order to function must have a phonetic representation of the
manufacturer’s brand. Speech recognition works by detecting
phonetic sounds and matching them to works in the grammar and
vocabulary [so] the phonetic representation of the grammar
vocabulary is cross-referenced to the manufacturer brand.
Ans. 3–4. The Examiner reasons that,
[i]n combination with Huang, the speech recognition of Gong
could be used to select the manufacturer’s brand, which in Huang
is cross-referenced with the code set. Thus, in combination with
Gong, where the phonetic representation is cross-referenced with
a brand, the phonetic representation would therefore be cross-
referenced with the codeset as well. Therefore [the] resulting
combination thus teaches [] “a codeset being cross-referenced to
a phonetic representation or a type for and a phonetic
representation of a brand of a target appliance” as required by the
claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of effective filing to modify the data entry of
Huang with speech recognition as taught by Gong in order to
increase ease of use and usefulness to a user (Gong 0003-04).
Id. at 3–4.
We see no error in the Examiner’s analysis.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument as follows:
Huang does not expressly or inherently disclose that the “device
manufacturer brand and model” is or must be used by anything
to identify within a library of codesets at least one codeset. In this
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
6
regard, in Huang, an index or location of a drop down menu item
selected by a user is most likely used by the remote control to
identify within a library of codesets at least one codeset.
Accordingly, Huang does not expressly or inherently disclose
any element that could (or would) be modified to arrive at the
exact invention claimed.
Reply Br. 2. This argument is unpersuasive because, in accordance with the
Examiner’s proposed combination of teachings, the use of voice command,
as in Gong, is used to select options from the dropdown menu of Haung. So
Gong’s voice command is used, even if indirectly to “to identify within a
library of codesets at least one codeset that is cross-referenced to a phonetic
representation of the type for and a phonetic representation of the brand of
the target appliance” as claimed.
Appellant further argues there is no evidence
that the combination of Huang and Gong would lead one of skill
in the art to the exact invention claimed, i.e., a system in which
a speech recognition engine uses the voice data indicative of at
least the type for and the brand of the target appliance to identify
within a library of codesets at least one codeset that is cross-
referenced to a phonetic representation of the type for and a
phonetic representation of the brand of the target appliance.
Id. at 3–4. This argument is unpersuasive because it amounts to a bald
assertion without evidentiary support and does not squarely rebut the
Examiner’s proposed reasoning. Ans. 4 (“It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the data
entry of Huang with speech recognition as taught by Gong in order to
increase ease of use and usefulness to a user.”).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001351
Application 15/785,803
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 9, 11, 13,
14, 15, 22, 24
103(a) Huang, Gong 1, 8, 9, 11,
13, 14, 15,
22, 24

2–7, 12, 16–21,
25
103(a) Huang, Gong,
Harris
2–7, 12, 16–
21, 25

10, 23 103(a) Huang, Gong,
Kimura
10, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–25
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED