Ex Parte Josephson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

09905590 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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. 09/905,590 07/13/2001 Daryl Craig Josephson 00001 4281 7590 09/26/2012 DARYL C JOSEPHSON 54 CHILTON AVE SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 EXAMINER HARPER, V PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DARYL CRAIG JOSEPHSON ____________ Appeal 2011-009778 Application 09/905,590 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before, THU A. DANG, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and GREGORY J. GONSALVES Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009778 Application 09/905,590 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing claims 1-10, 12-36 and 38-44. Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to systems and methods for “user-interface construction and implementation.” Appeal Brief 7. Illustrative Claim 1. An interfacing method conducted by one or more machines, the machines including a host computing device and one or more hosted machines, comprising: receiving voice information corresponding to at least one machine user; and processing the voice information, the processing including: determining whether the voice information includes command information; and if so, then: determining one or more use-based objectives corresponding to the voice information; determining one or more specificities corresponding to the command information; and determining a conversant command execution corresponding to the use-based objectives and the specificities. Appeal 2011-009778 Application 09/905,590 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-36 and 38-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Answer 4-6. Claims 2, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. Answer 6-7. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Answer 7. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 15-36, 38, 39 and 42-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Watanabe (U.S. Patent Number 6,035,267; issued March 7, 2000). Answer 7-17. Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Coffman (U.S. Patent Number 6,377,913; issued April 23, 2002). Answer 17-20. Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe ad Golhor (U.S. Patent Number 5,970,448; issued October 19, 1999). Answer 20-21. Appeal 2011-009778 Application 09/905,590 4 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the issues on appeal are: “Objection to amendments to the specification as containing new matter” and “Objection to the drawings as containing new matter.” Appeal Brief 18. The Examiner finds, “All of the appellant's arguments are addressed to petitionable subject matter (i.e., no outstanding rejections in the last office action have been addressed), thus the examiner maintains all the rejections and suggests the board affirm all the rejections.” Answer 21. We find the Examiner’s arguments to be persuasive because “Objection to amendments to the specification as containing new matter” and the “Objection to the drawings as containing new matter” are not before us since we lack jurisdiction over petitionable matters. See, e.g., MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition….”). Appellant provides no argument with respect to the reviewable rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 35 U.S.C. § 112 first and second paragraphs, 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s rejection of 1-10, 12-36, and 38-44. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10, 12-36 and 38-44. Appeal 2011-009778 Application 09/905,590 5 DECISION The rejections of claims 1-10, 12-36 and 38-44 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl