Ex Parte Evermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2014

11673341 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GUNNAR EVERMANN, DANIEL L. ROTH, LAURENCE S. GILLICK, and JAMES COUGHLIN ____________________ Appeal 2012-003032 Application 11/673,341 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–10 and 17–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-003032 Application 11/673,341 2 Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to wireless communication devices with speech-recognition capabilities (Spec. ¶ 2). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method implemented on a mobile device that includes speech recognition functionality, the method comprising: receiving an utterance from a user of the mobile device; using the speech recognition functionality on the mobile device to recognize that the received utterance includes a spoken search request; as a result of recognizing that the utterance includes a search request, establishing a wireless data connection to a remote server; sending a representation of the spoken search request to the remote server over the wireless data connection; receiving search results that are responsive to the spoken search request; and presenting the received search results on the mobile device as a response to the spoken search request. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bennett US 6,633,846 B1 Oct. 14, 2003 Roth WO 2006/002308 A2 Jan. 5, 2006 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1–10 and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bennett and Roth (Ans. 5–11). Appeal 2012-003032 Application 11/673,341 3 ANALYSIS Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:1 (1) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bennett and Roth teaches or suggests “using the speech recognition functionality on the mobile device to recognize that the received utterance includes a spoken search request,” as recited in claim 1; and (2) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bennett and Roth teaches or suggests “as a result of recognizing that the utterance includes a search request, establishing a wireless data connection to a remote server,” as also recited in claim 1. Bennett relates to a system and interactive method for responding to speech-based user inputs and queries presented over a distributed network such as the Internet or a local intranet. Bennett, col. 1, ll. 20–23. Bennett teaches a natural-language query system that is generally distributed across a client-side system, a data link, and a server-side system. Id. at col. 10, ll. 34–43. One example of the client-side system disclosed by Bennett is “part of a cell-phone.” Id. at col. 10, l. 52. Speech utterances are captured by, and partially processed by client-side software resident in the device, which outputs a set of speech vectors that are transmitted over a communication channel that links the device with a server. Id. at col. 10, l. 64 – col. 11, l. 10. The server further processes the partially processed 1 Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claims 2–10 and 17–24, but instead reference the arguments presented for claim 1. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as representative for claims 2–10 and 17–24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2012-003032 Application 11/673,341 4 speech-signal data to match an answer to a user’s question, which is transmitted back to the device, where it may be converted into speech for oral expression to the user. Id. at col. 11, ll. 11–24. Roth “relates to extendable voice commands that can be processed in a device.” Roth, p. 1, ll. 3–4. Roth teaches a mobile device with a speech- recognition engine “that identifies the commands spoken by the user.” Id. at p. 3, ll. 5–11. With respect to Appellants’ first contention, we disagree that the Examiner erred. Appellants’ argument that “Bennett entirely lacks enough speech recognition functionality to recognize any user input itself,” and that “Bennett only processes input utterances into speech vectors that are sent over wireless link to a remote server for recognition,” Br. 4, attacks Bennett individually for lack of a teaching when the Examiner has relied on the combination of Bennett and Roth. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner’s reasoning that one of skill in the art would combine Roth’s teaching of more complete client-side speech-recognition processing with Bennett’s teaching of further server-side processing to match an answer to a question is based on sufficient rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). With respect to Appellants’ second contention, we disagree that the Examiner erred. Appellants acknowledge that “Bennett does establish a wireless link to a remote server,” but argue that such establishment is not “as a result of recognizing that the utterance includes a search request.” Br. 4. Appeal 2012-003032 Application 11/673,341 5 This argument also attacks Bennett individually for lack of a teaching when the Examiner has relied on a combination of references. Roth teaches that “[s]ome of the applications [controlled by voice commands] can access information or services provided remotely to the device by the carrier.” Roth, p. 3, ll. 11–13 (reference numbers omitted). The combination of this teaching of remotely accessing services in response to processed voice commands with Bennett’s teaching of divided client- and server-side processing of speech utterances reasonably suggests the limitation. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–10 and 17–24 is affirmed. 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 tj