Ex Parte Yassa

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13284973 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/284,973 10/30/2011
23373 7590 03/29/2019
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fathy Yassa
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.
A213278 1367
EXAMINER
COLUCCI, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FATHY Y ASSA
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-19. App. Br. 26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Speech Morphing Systems, Inc., as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 9, 2018, "App. Br."), the Reply
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a networked communications system comprising
an automatic speech recognizer. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of representative Claim 1 3 which is
reproduced below with some formatting added and a disputed limitation
highlighted:
1. A networked communication system comprising:
an automatic speech recognizer configured to receive a
speech signal of a speaker in a first language from a client over
a network and to convert said speech signal into a text sequence
in the first language;
a speech analyzer configured to receive said speech
signal, said speech analyzer configured to extract all
paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the first
language from said speech signal; and
a speech output device coupled with said automatic
speech recognizer and said speech analyzer, said speech output
Brief (filed May 30, 2018, "Reply. Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
March 30, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 28, 2017, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed October 30, 2011, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
3 Appellant designates Claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 13. Therefore,
we decide this Appeal on the basis of representative Claim 1, and refer to the
rejected claims collectively herein as "the claims." See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
2
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
device comprising a look-up table of paralinguistic
characteristics mapping between the paralinguistic
characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to
paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in a second
language, and said speech output device configured to
transform all of the paralinguistic characteristics of the speech
signal in the first language to the paralinguistic characteristics
of the speech signal in the second language based on the
mapping between the paralinguistic characteristics of the
speech signal in the first language to the paralinguistic
characteristics of the speech signal in the second language of
the look-up table of paralinguistic characteristics and convert
said text sequence into an output speech signal in the second
language based on said paralinguistic characteristics of the
speech signal in the second language,
wherein the transformation of all the paralinguistic
characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to the
paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second
language comprises transforming at least one paralinguistic
characteristic of the speech signal in the first language
imparting a connotation in the first language to a first word in
the speech signal in the first language to at least one
corresponding paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal
in the second language imparting the connotation in the second
language to a second word of the speech signal in the second
language, the second word in the second language being a
translation of the first word in the first language,
wherein said paralinguistic characteristics of the speech
signal in the first language comprises at least one of a first pitch
of the speech signal in the first language, a first amplitude of
the speech signal in the first language, and a first rate of speech
of the speech signal in the first language, and
wherein said paralinguistic characteristics of the speech
signal in the second language comprises at least one of a second
pitch of the speech signal in the second language, a second
3
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
amplitude of the speech signal in the second language, and a
second rate of speech of the speech signal in the second
language.
Duan
Endo
Kumaran
Subramanian
Xu
References and Rejections4
US 6,223,150 Bl Apr. 24, 2001
US 7,228,275 Bl June 5, 2007
US 7,877,251 B2 Filed May 7, 2007
US 2007 /0208569 Al Sep. 6, 2007
Us2009/0055158 Al Feb. 26, 2009
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Duan, Xu, and Subramanian.
Final Act. 9-16.
2. Claims 4--6 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Duan, Xu, and Endo. Final Act. 16-18.
3. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Duan, Xu, Endo, and Kumaran. Final Act. 18.
4 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act. 2.
4
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-19 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded that
Appellants identify reversible error. We consider Appellants' arguments
seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 13-24; and in the
Reply Brief, pages 4--9.
CLAIMS 1-3, 8-11, 16, 18, AND 19:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER DUAN, Xu, AND SUBRAMANIAN.
Connotation.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
wherein the transformation of all the paralinguistic
characteristics of the speech signal in the first language to the
paralinguistic characteristics of the speech signal in the second
language comprises transforming at least one paralinguistic
characteristic of the speech signal in the first language
imparting a connotation in the first language to a first word in
the speech signal in the first language to at least one
corresponding paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal
in the second language imparting the connotation in the second
language to a second word of the speech signal in the second
language, the second word in the second language being a
translation of the first word in the first language.
The Examiner finds the Duan-Xu combination fails to teach where the
paralinguistic correlation imparts connotation information. Final Act. 13.
The Examiner finds Subramanian teaches emotional adjustment during
language translation with emotion to emotion transformation and inserting
5
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
emotion in new portions of audio output where it is expected in cultural
differences. Id., 14.
Appellant contends neither Duan, Xu, nor Subramanian teach that
speech at a first pitch in a first language might have connotation different
from speech at a second pitch in a second language, and thus the references
do not contemplate the transformation therebetween. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds the "[g]eneral transformation of 1st to 2nd
paralinguistic information was merely described in the claims (read upon by
Xu) until the specificity of "connotation" (read upon by Subramanian)."
Ans. 19. The Examiner finds "Xu teaches the transformation and mapping
of first to second paralinguistic( s) [, but] does not necessarily teach imparting
connotation per se across languages. Id. The Examiner further finds "in lieu
of official notice and specific to 'connotation' per se, Subramanian was
introduced and while translating across language, uses not only general
translation and transformation with markup but specific emotional context.
Id. (quoting Subramanian, Abstract) ("Emotion across voice and text
communication channels are abstracted, preserved and translated."). The
Examiner specifically finds: "Subramanian expressly teaches the
transformation of a first speech with emotional context in a first language to
a second language with emotional context." Ans. 20.
Appellant contends the claims recite "transforming at least one
paralinguistic characteristic of the speech signal in the first language
imparting a connotation ... to at least one corresponding paralinguistic
characteristic of the speech signal in the second language imparting the
6
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
connotation." Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that Subramanian merely
recognizes emotions for the purpose of adjusting "tone, camber, and
frequency." Id. (citing Subramanian, ,r 75).
Appellant does not indicate a definition for the term "connotation" in
the Specification, nor does Appellant argue that "connotation" should be
construed to be a term of art in an industry relevant to the claims. Nor does
the Examiner define the term "connotation" or indicate that it is a
specialized term of art. We therefore, find a person of ordinary skill in the
art would consult a generalist dictionary to define the term "connotation."
Connotation is defined as "the suggesting of a meaning of a word
apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes." Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (2005). 5 Thus, we find the "connotation" of a
term implies a secondary meaning beyond its explicit denotation.
Subramanian discloses: "The translated emotion metadata is used to
emotion mine words that have an emotion connotation in the culture of the
second language. Those words are then substituted for corresponding words
in the translated text." Subramanian, Abstract ( cited by the Examiner).
Thus, Subramanian teaches finding a word conveying an equivalent
emotion, but does not teach "suggesting of a meaning of a word apart from
the thing it explicitly names or describes."
5 The Oxford English Dictionary. (a) The signifying in addition; inclusion of
something in the meaning of a word besides what it primarily denotes;
implication. Oxford English Dictionary. (b) That which is implied in a
word in addition to its essential or primary meaning.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39386?redirectedFrom=connotation#eid.
7
Appeal2018-006346
Application 13/284,973
Independent Claims 9, 18, and 19 contain commensurate recitations.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-3,
8-11, 16, 18, and 19.
CLAIMS 4--7 AND 12-17: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
DUAN, Xu, SUBRAMANIAN, ENDO, AND KUMARAN.
Appellant contends Claims 4--7 and 12-17 are patentable by virtue of
their dependence on Claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 23-24. The Examiner's
Answer does not make separate findings for the dependent claims. See Ans.
29-30.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
4--7 and 12-17.
DECISION6
The rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6 Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons
discussed herein, we need not address Appellants' further arguments. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a single
dispositive issue").
8