Elwha LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 1, 2021

2020001035 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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. 15/202,525 07/05/2016 Royce A. Levien SE2-1368-US 1120 80118 7590 10/01/2021 Constellation Law Group, PLLC P.O. Box 580 Tracyton, WA 98393 EXAMINER NEWAY, SAMUEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2021 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): ISFDocketInbox@intven.com Tyler@constellationlaw.com admin@constellationlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROYCE A. LEVIEN, RICHARD T. LORD, ROBERT W. LORD, and MARK A. MALAMUD Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 270, 274, 277, 279, 284, 285, 289, 291–293, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 331–338 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Elwha LLC. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed July 5, 2016 (claiming benefit of multiple applications, including US 13/485,733, filed Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally “is related to adaptation data related to speech processing.” Spec. ¶ 13. Specifically, Appellant’s claims recite devices (personal devices, e.g., a smart phone (see Spec. ¶ 110)) for detecting speech data “related to a speech facilitated transaction” of a particular party with a target device (claim 270; see Spec. ¶ 15) and converting the speech data into converted data that is distinct (has a different form) from the speech data. See Spec. ¶¶ 14–19; Abstr. Claims 270, 326, and 327 (directed to devices) are independent. Claim 270, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 270. A personal device comprising: a microphone; at least one transmission interface; at least some computer readable memory; and at least one computer processor operably coupled to the at least some computer readable memory, the at least one computer processor configured to perform operations including at least: detecting using the microphone of the personal device, speech data related to a speech facilitated transaction of a particular party with a target device; performing, using the at least one computer processor of the personal device, at least some processing of the speech data to convert the speech data into converted data that is recognizable by the target device, the converted data being a different form than the speech data; and May 31, 2012); and Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Aug. 12, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Apr. 11, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”), mailed Sept. 18, 2019. Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 3 transmitting the converted data to the target device via the at least one transmission interface of the personal device for processing. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ljolje et al. (“Ljolje”) US 8,374,867 B2 Feb. 12, 2013 Boregowda et al. (“Boregowda”) US 2012/0010887 A1 Jan. 12, 2012 Lim US 2013/0132094 A1 May 23, 2013 REJECTIONS3, 4 1. The Examiner rejects claims 270, 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application claims benefit of an effective filing date prior to the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 4 The Examiner rejected Appellant’s pending claims in twelve separate double patenting rejections. See Final Act. 2–29. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s double patenting rejections in their Appeal Brief. Instead, Appellant states that they have filed a terminal disclaimer: “Appellant has filed concurrently herewith a suitable terminal disclaimer which Appellant respectfully submits overcomes and obviates the double patenting rejections. Appeal Br. 5, footnote 2. It is unclear from our review of the terminal disclaimer whether Appellant includes all of the applications identified by the Examiner. In any event the Examiner withdrew the double patenting rejections in view of Appellant’s filed terminal disclaimer. See Ans. 20. Accordingly, we do not address the Examiner’s withdrawn rejections. Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 4 331–338 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boregowda and Lim. See Final Act. 29–45. 14. The Examiner rejects claims 284, 292, 296, and 299 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boregowda, Lim, and Ljolje. See Final Act. 45–47. ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 270, 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 331–338 as a group based on independent claim 270 and does not separately argue independent claims 326 and 327, or dependent claims 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, and 331–338. See Appeal Br. 10–12. Appellant also argues the rejection of dependent claims 284, 292, 296, and 299 as a group based on independent claim 270. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant does not argue this rejection or these claims separately. Appellant provides separate arguments for dependent claim 331. See Appeal Br. 13–14. We select independent claim 270 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 274, 277, 279, 284, 285, 289, 291–293, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 332–338. We address separately Appellant’s contentions with respect to claim 331. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 270 The Examiner rejects independent claim 270 as being obvious in view of Boregowda and Lim. See Final Act. 30–32; Ans. 21–24. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Boregowda teaches each feature of claim 270, including a personal speech profile data (PSPD) interface (which the Examiner maps Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 5 to the recited personal device), with the exception of the PSPD (personal device) explicitly performing the functions of speech detection and conversion. See Final Act. 30–31; Ans. 21–24. The Examiner relies on Lim to teach a device that detects speech data, converts the speech data, and transmits the converted speech data to a target device. See Final Act. 31–32; Ans. 21–24. The Examiner further explains that: “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to have combined the references to yield the predictable result of using Boregowda’s PSPD device to detect and convert the speech data and transmit the converted speech data to the speech recognition system” because “captur[ing] the speech data using a device that may be held close to the user’s mouth” would have “improv[ed] the quality of the captured speech.” Further, “[t]he speech data may also be preprocessed at the PSPD device before transmission,” as taught by Lim, thereby “decreasing the processing required at the speech recognition system.” Final Act. 31–32; see Ans. 21–24. Appellant contends that “there is no proper motivation to combine Boregowda with Lim in the manner suggested by the Examiner” (Appeal Br. 7) because the “proposed combination of Boregowda and Lim requires an impermissible change in a principle of operation of Boregowda, and therefore lacks proper motivation,” and also the “proposed combination of Boregowda and Lim renders Boregowda unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and therefore lacks proper motivation” (Appeal Br. 8). Appeal Br. 7–8; see Appeal Br. 8–10. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 29–32) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 6 (Ans. 21–24) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following analysis for emphasis. Appellant focuses their arguments on the combinability of Boregowda and Lim and does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to the references. Appellant contends that the Examiner’ proposed combination of Boregowda with Lim would “eliminate the ‘speaker-dependent’ aspects” described in Boregowda, as well as the “‘personal speech profile data (PSPD)’” of Boregowda. Appeal Br. 9; see Appeal Br. 8–10. Appellant, however, misconstrued the Examiner’s rejection. We agree with the Examiner that the Examiner did not eliminate any feature of Boregowda, but instead supplemented Boregowda’s teachings concerning the PSPD with Lim’s teachings and functionality. See Ans. 21– 24. Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rationale for combining Boregowda and Lim, or the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in view of the combination of Boregowda and Lim. Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and additional discussion of Boregowda and Lim, as well as the disputed combinability of Boregowda with Lim, or otherwise rebut the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 21– 24. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Boregowda and Lim renders obvious Appellant’s independent claim 270. Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 7 Other Claims The Examiner rejects claims 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 331–338 as being obvious in view of Boregowda and Lim. See Final Act. 30, 32–45. Appellant did not separately argue with specificity independent claims 326 and 327, or dependent claims 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, and 331–338 (supra). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims for the same reasons as representative claim 270 (supra). Obviousness Rejection of Claim 331 The Examiner rejects dependent claim 331 as being obvious in view of Boregowda and Lim. See Final Act. 41; Ans. 24–25. Claim 331 recites, in relevant part: “identifying the target device from one or more other possible devices based on proximity” (Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Boregowda identifies a target device based on its proximity to the personal device (Boregowda’s PSPD). See Final Act. 41; Ans. 24–25; Boregowda ¶¶ 21, 55. Appellant contends that Boregowda does not teach identifying the target device based on proximity. See Appeal Br. 13–14. Specifically, Appellant contends that Boregowda does not teach identifying based on proximity because “Boregowda is silent regarding ‘identifying the target device from one or more other possible devices based on proximity.’” Appeal Br. 14. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 41) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 8 (Ans. 24–25) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following analysis for emphasis. We understand Appellant to contend that Boregowda does not explicitly describe identifying (discriminating) a target device from other devices based on its proximity to the personal device. The Examiner explains that Boregowda describes the PSPD being a “contactless type” that may communicate wirelessly via a handshaking process. See Ans. 24–25 (citing Boregowda ¶¶ 21, 55; Fig. 2). We agree with the Examiner that Boregowda’s wireless communication process necessitates identifying based on proximity. Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and additional discussion of Boregowda, as well as the disputed limitations of claim 331, or otherwise rebut the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 24–25. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that Boregowda (in combination with Lim) teaches the disputed identification. Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 331 as obvious in view of Boregowda and Lim, and we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 331. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 284, 292, 296, and 299 The Examiner rejects claims 284, 292, 296, and 299 as being obvious in view of Boregowda, Lim, and Ljolje. See Final Act. 45–47. Appellant Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 9 does not separately argue the rejection of claims 284, 292, 296, and 299 with particularity. See Appeal Br. 12–13; supra. For the same reasons as claim 270 (supra), Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 284, 292, 296, and 299, not separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 284, 292, 296, and 299. CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 270, 274, 277, 279, 284, 285, 289, 291–293, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 331–338 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 270, 274, 277, 279, 284, 285, 289, 291–293, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, and 331–338. Appeal 2020-001035 Application 15/202,525 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 270, 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, 331–338 103(a) Boregowda, Lim 270, 274, 277, 279, 285, 289, 291, 293, 295, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, 331–338 284, 292, 296, 299 103(a) Boregowda, Lim, Ljolje 284, 292, 296, 299 Overall Outcome 270, 274, 277, 279, 284, 285, 289, 291–293, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 322, 323, 325–329, 331–338 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED