Ex Parte Michaelis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2017

13778875 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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. 13/778,875 02/27/2013 Paul Roller Michaelis 4366-636 1283 48500 7590 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER LELAND III, EDWIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2017 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): cjacquet@ sheridanross.com pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com edocket @ sheridanross .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL ROLLER MICHAELIS Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 13—19, and 22—24. Appellant has canceled claims 11, 12, 20, and 21. App. Br. 12—13 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 The Invention Appellant’s Specification states the invention is directed to systems and methods for transmitting multiple streams of an electronic communication in different languages. The Claims Claims 1, 13, 22, and 24 are independent. Claims 1 and 22 are the focus of Appellant’s brief and are reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: establishing, by a processor, a communication, wherein the communication includes an audio communication from a first communication device; receiving, by the processor, an audio stream from the first communication device, wherein the audio stream comprises speech of a plurality of users of the first communication device; translating, by the processor, speech from the audio stream from the first communication device into a plurality of text streams, wherein the plurality of text streams are in different languages, and wherein each of the plurality of text streams in the different languages are directly translated from the audio stream from the first communication device; and transmitting, by the processor, the plurality of text streams to at least one communication device involved in the communication. 1 Our Decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 18, 2016); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 22, 2016); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 4, 2016); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 11, 2015); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 27, 2013). 2 Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 22. The method of claim 1, further comprising: filtering a specific translated word, in a specific language, from a specific user of the plurality of users, in a specific one of the plurality of text steams based on a user definable list. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 7, 9—10, 13 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saindon et al. (US 2002/0161579 Al, pub. Oct. 31, 2002) (“Saidon”). Final Act. 2. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saindon and Clark (US 2013/0090915 Al, pub. Apr. 11, 2013). Id. at 5. Claims 3—4, 6 and 15—18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saindon and Werner (US 2001/0030710 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2001). Id. at 6. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saindon, Werner, and Saarinen et al. (EP 0744866 A2, pub. Nov. 27, 1996). Id. at 8. Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saindon and Das et al. (US 2004/0096050 Al, pub. May 20, 2004). Id. at 9. Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saindon and Bill (US 8,611,928 Bl, filed Dec. 29, 2006, iss. Dec. 17, 2013). Id. at 10 Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saindon and Kojima (Japanese Patent Application Publication HI0-173757, pub. June 26, 1998). Id. at 12. 3 Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 13 Appellant contends, and we agree, the Examiner has not demonstrated Saindon discloses translating speech from an audio stream into a plurality of text streams “wherein each of the plurality of text streams in the different languages are directly translated from the audio stream from the first communication device” as required by claim 1 and similarly by claim 13. The Examiner states the “Language Translator” shown in Figure 1 of Saidon translates speech from the audio stream into the plurality of text streams. Ans. 3 (citing Saidon Fig. 1, 147—149). The Examiner further states the plurality of text streams are directly translated from the audio stream from the first communication device as the audio stream “is directly translated into text of different languages without intervening translation.” Id. (citing Saidon Fig. 3, 108—109). The Language Translator of Saidon, however, does not translate directly from the audio stream. Rather, a “Speech-to-Text Converter” first translates or converts the audio into text and then “Language Translator” translates the converted text into another language. Saidon 126, Figs. 1, 3, 6. This can also be seen in Figure 7 of Saidon, which indicates the Speech- to-Text Converter converts the English audio to “English Text.” The English text is then sent to the Language Translator, which translates the English text to “Translated Text.” As such, the Language Translator does not translate speech directly from the audio stream but rather translates the text converted from audio.2 2 Appellant describes Fig. 7 as showing that the “English text is sent to the Speech-to-Text Converter and the translated text version(s) are sent back to 4 Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 In contrast, Appellant’s Specification discloses translating audio directly into different languages without an intervening conversion or translation, e.g., from audio to text. For example, Paragraph 26 of the Specification states that translator 122 translates the English voice in real time into English, Spanish, and French text streams.” Id. at 126 (emphasis added). The Specification states translator 122 “may translate the voice signal in one language to a text stream in a different language(s) or the same language” or that “translator 122 may translate a text stream or message in one language to other language(s).” Id. at 119 (emphasis added). Because the Examiner has not shown Saidon discloses the disputed limitation, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—10 and 23, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 or 13. Because a rejection of independent claim 1 under §103 is not before us on appeal, we express no opinion as to whether claim 1 would have been obvious over Saidon, or in combination with one or more additional references. We leave any such further consideration to the Examiner. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1213.02. Claims 22 and 24 Appellant contends, and we agree, the Examiner has not demonstrated Bill and Saidon, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests “filtering a the Language Translator.” App. Br. 7 (emphasis added) It is assumed that this is a typographical error and Appellant intended to state “English text is sent to the Language Translator and the translated text version(s) are sent back to the Speech-to-Text Converter." 5 Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 specific translated word, in a specific language, from a specific user of the plurality of users, in a specific one of the plurality of text steams, based on a user definable list” as required by claim 22 and similarly by claim 24. App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds Bill teaches this limitation in its description of a “user definable list of words which can be in any specific language from a specific user to block in text messages.” Ans. 10—11 (citing Bill 12:4—25, 13:44—53). The Examiner finds Bill teaches a “list of words or phrases that are set by a parent (i.e. the list is user definable) that are blocked from being received by a particular child (i.e specific user) in a text message, instant message, or email (i.e. in a specific text stream). The words may be in any specific language and could include words from multiple languages.” Ans. 16. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Saidon with the user defined blocked word lists of Bill because it allows the user to protect themselves from offensive language. Id. at 10. Claim 22, however, requires that a specific translated word in a specific language is filtered from a specific user. As recited in claim 1 (from which claim 22 depends), the audio stream comprises speech of a plurality of users. The Examiner does not persuasively explain how Bill alone or in combination with Saidon teaches filtering a specific word from a specific user. See Ans. 16—17. As such, on this record we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 and 24. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10, 13—19, and 22—24. 6 Appeal 2017-002266 Application 13/778,875 REVERSED 7