Ex Parte Ezra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14417577 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/417,577 01/27/2015 Shimon Ezra
24737 7590 11/30/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012P00796WOUS 1026
EXAMINER
ORR,HENRYW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIMON EZRA
Appeal2018-003729
Application 14/417 ,577 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-13, 15-25, 27, and 28. Final Act. 2.
Claims 14 and 26 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips N.V., as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 15, 2017, "Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed February 26, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
Appeal2018-003729
Application 14/417 ,577
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method for determining whether an audio
corresponds to a predetermined mapping between an utterance and a call of
a software application. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 15, and 28 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method, comprising:
visually displaying a list of utterance to software call pair
mappmgs;
receiving audio at a computing apparatus;
determining, by the computing apparatus, whether the
audio corresponds to a predetermined mapping between an
utterance and a software call of software application executing
on the computing apparatus, in the list of utterance to software
call pair mappings; and
invoking the software call only in response to the audio
corresponding to the software call, wherein the invoked
software call at least one of activates or deactivates at least one
of a mode or a tool of the executing software application.
Tadayon
Kim
References and Rejections
US 2011/0195699 Al
US 2012/0127072 Al
Aug. 11, 2011
May 24, 2012
(mailed January 9, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed May 4, 2017,
"Final Act)," and the Specification (filed January 27, 2015, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2018-003729
Application 14/417 ,577
Nenov WO 2009/048984 Al Apr. 16, 2009
1. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as anticipated by Kim. Final Act. 3-
11.
2. Claims 1, 4, 15, 18-20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §I02(b)
as anticipated by Nenov. Final Act. 11-13.
3. Claims 11 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Kim and Tadayon. Final Act. 14--15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-13, 15-25, 27, and 28 in
light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered
in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief.
Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief,
we do not agree with Appellant that the claims are patentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102 or§ 103. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant's arguments
seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief pages 4--8.
3
Appeal2018-003729
Application 14/417 ,577
CLAIMS 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, AND 28:
ANTICIPATION BY KIM.
Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the recitations of
Claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "visually displaying a list of
utterance to software call pair mappings" and "receiving audio at a
computing apparatus."
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a multimedia device that maps
specific commands onto stored gesture and voice information. Final Act. 3
( citing Kim, Fig. 9; ,r 162). The Examiner further finds Kim discloses a
method of controlling the multimedia device whereby the voice and gesture
of a user are recognized. Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner has misinterpreted Figure 9 of Kim.
Appeal Br. 4--5. According to Appellant, Icons 802 thru 805 visually show
finger gestures for a user to control various functions of a multimedia
device. Id., 4. Appellant argues Icons 806- 809 each visually show a
graphical symbol - a triangle inscribed within a circle - which represents the
audio play button. Id., 4--5. According to Appellant, the encircled triangle
is mapped to play an audio file, but is not mapped to any of the commands
represented by Icons 802 - 805. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Kim, ,r 167) (stating
the selection of an icon causes the device to play voice data). Appellant
contends Figure 9 does not disclose voice "utterances" mapped to software
calls, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds the graphical icon that plays voice information,
i.e., the "utterance," from the audio file, is an example of am utterance that
invokes a software call. Ans. 16.
4
Appeal2018-003729
Application 14/417 ,577
Appellant contends "[i]ndependent claim 1 requires visually
displaying a list of utterance to software call pair mappings. Independent
claims 15 and 28 recite similar limitations. Kim does not describe the
subject limitation." We disagree.
Kim discloses: "FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating a display screen of a
menu that includes a list of operations corresponding to gesture and voice
input in accordance with the embodiment of the invention." Kim, ,r 161.
We find that "a display screen ... that includes a list of operations
corresponding to gesture and voice input," fairly anticipates "visually
displaying a list of utterance to software call pair mappings," as claimed. In
view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
CLAIMS 1, 4, 15, 18-20, AND 28: ANTICIPATION BYNENOV.
Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the recitations of
Claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant contends Nenov fails to disclose displaying a list of
utterances to software call pair mappings. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner finds the first command in Table 1 ofNenov is a
command to display a list of available voice commands and finds the list of
available voice commands are an example of a visual display list of
utterance commands to software call mappings. Ans. 16-17.
Appellant contends the cited Table 1 forms part of the reference
specification, but is not displayed upon any apparatus. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant argues Nenov does not disclose any apparatus, processor, or
method in which either Table 1, or its content, is displayed. Id.
5
Appeal2018-003729
Application 14/417 ,577
The Examiner finds the first command in Table 1 is "COMMANDS"
which is a voice command to display a listing of available voice commands.
Ans. 16.
In Table 1 Nenov discloses the voice command "COMMAND" which
causes the dashboard function to: "Display list of available voice
commands." Nenov, 52. We find this disclosure fairly anticipates "visually
displaying a list of utterance to software call pair mappings," as claimed. In
view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
CLAIMS 11 AND 23: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KIM AND TADA YON.
Appellant argues Claims 11 and 23 depend from Claims 1 and 15,
respectively, and that Tadayon fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Kim.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The rejection of Claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6