Bruce Pollock et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2019

12974001 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
12/974,001 12/21/2010 Bruce Pollock PAT-139A 2886
29129 7590 09/16/2019
TOM TILDEN
C/O WEST CORPORATION
11808 MIRACLE HILLS DR.
MAIL STOP: W11-LEGAL
OMAHA, NE 68154
EXAMINER
WATHEN, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2019 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):
TNTILDEN@WEST.COM
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
mzarinelli@proactivepatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE POLLOCK and ERIKA NELSON KESSENGER1
____________

Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, West Corporation is the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief (App. Br.) 3.
Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001

2

INVENTION
Appellants claimed invention is directed to preference-based event
notification. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for managing events for a user, the method
comprising:
at an event monitoring engine:
receiving a set of user preferences from a user of an
interfacing device, the set of user preferences comprising a set
of notification settings comprising an excitement level for a
particular event, the excitement level defined by a number of
instances of the particular event being mentioned on one or
more websites;
receiving a set of events associated with event data and
viewable on the interfacing device, each of the set of events
associated with respective event data;
using speech analytics to extract information about
content of the event, the information comprising amounts or
locations of speech versus non-speech;
comparing the set of user preferences with the event data
for the set of events to identify all or a portion of a matching
event in the set of events, or at least a portion of the respective
event data for the matching event matching the set of user
preferences; and
sending a notification to the interfacing device in
accordance with the set of notification settings in response to
identifying the matching event.
App. Br. 36 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of John et al. (US 2012/0030292 A1, Feb
2, 2012) (“John 1”), John et al. (US 2012/0072845 A1, Mar. 22, 2012)
(“John 2”), and Karas (US 2007/0198259 A1, Aug. 23, 2007). Final Act. 2–
14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 13–17 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of John 1, Magdy
(US 2009/0249387, Oct. 1, 2009), and Karas. Final Act. 14–21.
The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of John 1, Magdy, and Karas. Final Act.
21–22.
The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of John 1, Magdy, Karas, and Cama
(US 2008/0228891 A1, Sept. 18, 2008). Final Act. 22–23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments on pages 11 through 35 of
the Appeal Brief, and pages 2 through 11 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s
rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20.
Claim 1 recites “using speech analytics to extract information about
content of the event, the information comprising amounts or locations of

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
December 11, 2017, Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed April 2, 2018, Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 11, 2017, and Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January 19, 2018.
Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001

4

speech versus non-speech.” App. Br. 36 (Claims App.).3 The Examiner
finds Karas teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–16. Specifically,
the Examiner finds Karas’ disclosure of “locating a specific segment of
footage by the words that were spoken in the footage,” teaches locations of
speech, as claimed. Ans. 9; Karas ¶ 15. Further, the Examiner finds Karas’
disclosure that the footage may contain image, voice, and text, and that
“every spoken word is logged against a time frame measurement shared by
the corresponding video data,” teaches locations of speech versus non-
speech, as claimed. Ans. 9; Karas ¶¶ 15, 33, 36.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Karas “does not
disclose distinguishing speech from non-speech” and “does not disclose
determining amounts or location of speech versus non-speech.” (emphasis
original) App. Br. 16–17; see Reply Br. 2–11. Appellants argue that Karas
“is completely silent as to non-speech, let alone regarding distinguishing the
amount or location of speech versus non-speech, as claimed.” Id. at 20.
Appellants further argue that Karas “may merely indicate the start time and
duration of a spoken word. This provides no information regarding a
location of non-speech (for instance, cheering and other non-speech noise).”
Id.; see Reply Br. 5–6.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The test
for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of

3 With respect to claims 2–20, Appellants’ arguments present the same
issues as independent claim 1. App. Br. passim; Reply Br. passim. Except
for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001

5

ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 414, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, the Examiner finds that
Karas teaches locating and logging every spoken word against a time frame
measurement shared by corresponding non-speech data, such as video data.
Ans. 9; Karas ¶¶ 15, 33, 36. The skilled artisan would appreciate that upon
determining the time location of every spoken word in a time frame, the
remaining information comprises non-speech. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments that Karas is completely silent as to non-speech and does not
distinguish the location of speech versus non-speech, do not persuade us of
Examiner error. App. Br. 16–20; see Reply Br. 2–11.
Appellants additionally argue that a proper interpretation of the claims
requires that “the locations, of speech and non-speech are both provided for
comparison.” Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue
that “[w]hile Karas generally discusses a speech-based approach, it does not
disclose identifying and using non-speech against speech in the manner
claimed by Appellants.” Reply Br. 11. Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 indicates that
information is extracted and that the information comprises amounts or
locations of speech versus non-speech. App. Br. 36 (Claims App.). Claim 1
neither recites nor requires the amounts, or the locations, of speech and non-
speech both be provided for comparison. See id. Claim 1 does not specify
the manner in which speech and non-speech are identified. See id. Claim 1
also does not specify the manner in which speech is used against non-
speech. See id. In fact, we find no apparent nexus between the disputed
claim limitation and the other claim limitations.
Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001

6

Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim term “versus” is in error. Reply Br. 4–6. The Examiner finds that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “versus” is “as opposed to.” Ans. 6.
Appellants argue “that ‘as compared to’ is more fitting and logical in this
context given that paragraph [0034] of the subject application discloses
extracting multiple different types of information from speech.” Reply Br.
4. We find Appellants’ statement to be attorney argument without
supporting evidence. Appellants have not explained why the Specification’s
disclosure of extracting multiple different types of information establishes
that the claim term “versus” should be interpreted to mean “as compared to.”
Additionally, Appellants’ arguments do not reveal reversible error in
the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term
“versus.” Appellants have not shown that the Examiner’s broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim term “versus” is inconsistent with the
Specification. As disclosed in the Specification, a speech analytics engine
may utilize speech analytics to extract information about the content of an
event being analyzed. Spec. ¶ 34. Example types of information are
disclosed as including “the amount or locations of the speech versus non-
speech (e.g., background noise or silence), etc.” Id. The skilled artisan
would reasonably understand paragraph 34 of Karas to teach that an example
type of information can include speech as opposed to non-speech. See
Karas ¶ 34. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation of “versus” to mean “as
opposed to,” in this context is reasonable. Further, the Examiner’s
interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ arguments that speech is
distinguished from not-speech. See App. Br. 16, 20, 21, 25.
Appeal 2018-008228
Application 12/974,001

7

Moreover, both the Examiner’s and Appellants’ proffered
interpretations of the claim term “versus” lead us to the same conclusion.
That is, whether the claim term “versus” is interpreted as “as compared to”
or “as opposed to,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Karas’
disclosure of locating a specific segment of footage by words that were
spoken in the footage and logging every spoken word against a time frame
measurement shared by the corresponding video data teaches “using speech
analytics to extract information about content of the event, the information
comprising amounts or locations of speech versus non-speech,” as claimed.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 9–13; Karas ¶¶ 15, 33, 36.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2015).

AFFIRMED