Ex Parte Thorn

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2014

11928162 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014)

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. 11/928,162 10/30/2007 Karl Ola THORN PS07 0817US1 6971 58342 7590 09/22/2014 WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19TH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER ADESANYA, OLUJIMI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2014 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 KARL OLA THORN ____________ Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 1 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–3, 8–14, and 16–25. Claims 4–7 and 15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to the input of text to an application operating on a device, and more particularly, the selection, marking, and 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 2 pasting of a depiction of text rendered on a display screen to an application operating on the device. Spec. para. 1. The present appeal involves claims 1–3, 8–14, and 16–25. Independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A device comprising: a digital camera for capturing an image including a depiction of text; a display screen; an audio circuit for generating an audio signal representing spoken words uttered by a user; and a processor executing a first application, a second application, and a text mark-up object; the first application rendering the depiction of text on the display screen; the text mark-up object: receiving at least a portion of the audio signal representing spoken words uttered by the user; performing speech recognition to generate a text representation of the spoken words uttered by the user; performing character recognition on the depiction of text to generate a character string; determining a selected text segment by correlating the text representation of the spoken words to the character string and applying a disambiguation rule to resolve a difference between the text representation of the spoken words and the character string, Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 3 the selected text segment being text which corresponds to both a portion of the character string and the text representation of the spoken words; and performing an input function to input the selected text segment to the second application. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims. Garside US 2003/0233237 A1 Dec. 18, 2003 Yurick US 2007/0011012 A1 Jan. 11, 2007 Grounds of Rejection Claims 1–3, 8–14, and 16–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garside and Yurick. ISSUE Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 8–14, and 16–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garside and Yurick because the combination does not teach or suggest all of the claim limitations. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that Garside does not disclose a comparison of converted spoken text and text input via a stylus and there is no reasonable basis to modify Garside with the teachings of Yurick to perform such a comparison. App. Br. 8. Appellant further argues that the proposed Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 4 combination of Garside and Yurick would eliminate the main feature of Garside and impermissibly change Garside’s principle of operation. App. Br. 10. The Examiner explains, however, that claim 1 does not claim a comparison of converted spoken text and text input via a stylus, but rather determining a selected text segment, the selected text segment being text which corresponds to both a portion of the depiction of text on the display screen and the text representation of the spoken words uttered by the user. Ans. 23. Here, the Examiner uses Yurick, not Garside, to teach and/or suggest correlating a text representation of spoken words to a character string. Ans. 6–7. The Examiner further explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Garside with the teachings of Yurick because of the suggestions in Yurick to determine the correct representation of spoken or written words; to provide for an improved system where the user can observe words that require correction or replacement; and to improve upon Garside with a technique of utilizing a disambiguation rule to point out input errors to the user. Ans. 25, 26. The Examiner explains that Yurick provides an added advantage to the user by having errors corrected automatically while preserving Garside’s human correction of errors without eliminating the functionality of either the stylus or the voice inputs, thus preserving the original principle of Garside while resulting in an improved system. Ans. 27. We agree with the Examiner’s aforementioned reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Garside and Yurick. These improvements comport with Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 5 one of the express goals of Garside which is to provide “data input techniques that will allow a user to accurately input data to a computer with both relatively high-speed and accuracy.” Garside para. 8. Independent claim 12 is a method claim implemented by the device presented in claim 1. We find that the recited steps of claim 12 are also taught by the combination of Garside and Yurick, for the reasons discussed above. Claims 2 and 9 depend from claim 1, and add the limitations of the text mark-up object drives rendering of a marking of the portion of the depiction of text on the display screen which corresponds to the selected text segment and performs the input function only upon detection of an input command. The Examiner points out that Garside teaches these additional limitations in at least paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 39, 43, 55, 58–60 and 63. Ans. 28, 29. The Appellant argues that the selection of text identified by the Examiner in Garside cannot be the same marking contemplated by claim 2 because the selected word in Garside does not correspond to the selected text segment of claim 2. Reply Br. 10. We disagree. Here, Garside is used for its disclosure of allowing the user to modify text entered by the stylus with text that corresponds to the text representation of spoken word, i.e., an input command. Garside para. 58-60. As noted supra, Yurick teaches the selected text segment by a correlating feature. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the limitations added by dependent claims 2 and 9 are taught by Garside. Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 6 Claims 3 and 10 also depend from claim 1, and add the limitations of wherein the input command is an audio command uttered by the user and the text mark-up object detects the command within the audio signal by speech recognition. The Examiner points out that Garside teaches these additional limitations in at least paragraphs 39, 55, and 63. Ans. 30. The Appellant argues that Garside does not disclose that the input function is performed only upon detection of an audio command while rendering the marking of the portion of the depiction of text. Reply Br. 11, 12. We disagree. Garside teaches allowing the user to correct text that is displayed before the text is input/pasted into another application, and performing the input/pasting of the selected text in response to receiving spoken speech commands. Garside paras. 39, 55, and 63. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the limitations added by dependent claims 3 and 10 are taught by Garside. Claims 13 and 14 depend from method claim 12, and add limitations similar to those set forth in dependent claims 2 and 3. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the limitations added by dependent claims 13 and 14 are also taught by Garside. The Appellant does not separately address the rejection of dependent claims 8, 11, 16–18, and 21–25, therefore these claims fall with the claims from which they depend. We note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3, 8–14, and 16–25. Appeal 2012-005994 Application 11/928,162 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 8–14, and 16–25 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 rwk