Facebook, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 24, 20212020001378 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/694,733 09/01/2017 Alexander Waibel 26295-38105/US 8682 87851 7590 06/24/2021 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 EXAMINER ROBERTS, SHAUN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2021 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): fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com ptoc@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALEXANDER WAILBEL and IAN R. LANE ____________________ Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 (all of the pending claims). Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method comprising: [A.] receiving, from a user, an utterance in a first language, the utterance including a term, [A.i.] the utterance associated with an indication from the user to add the term to a user’s individual lexicon of a speech recognition system; [B.] determining a word class for the term; [C.] determining a first value of an intra-class probability for the term, [C.i.] the intra-class probability reflecting a relevance of the term specific to the user relative to other terms in the user’s individual lexicon that belong to the word class; [D.] increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the first value to a second value based on the indication from the user to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon, [D.i.] the increase in the intra-class probability representing the term being more likely to be used by the user due to the indication from the user to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon; [E.] adding [E.i.] the term, [E.ii.] the word class, and [E.iii.] the intra-class probability to the lexicon of the user. Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 3 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Franz US 6,356,865 B1 Mar. 12, 2002 Cohen US 2007/0233487 A1 Oct. 4, 2007 Hwang US 7,584,102 B2 Sept. 1, 2009 REJECTIONS A. The Examiner rejects claims 1–13 and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cohen and Hwang. Final Act. 3–9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2–13 and 15–19 further herein. B. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cohen, Hwang, and Franz. Final Act. 9. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 20 further herein. 2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Date cited is the date of publication. Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 4 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. The Appellant’s contentions we discuss are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed in detail herein. A. The Examiner determines: Regarding claim 1 Cohen teaches A method (abstract: method) comprising: . . . determining a first value of an intra-class probability for the term, the intra-class probability reflecting a relevance of the term specific to the user relative to other terms in a lexicon that belong to the word class (25; 27; 30 probability; 44; 51: probability); increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the first value to a second value based on the indication to add the term to the lexicon, the increase in the intra-class probability representing the term being more likely to be used by the user (27; 30; 44; 55–56). Final Act. 3–4. Hwang teaches, the user’s individual lexicon (abstract; claim 1: user- specific language model; col 9 l. 8–14: building a language model related to the user; col 9 l. 61–65), corresponding to the limitations of: . . . increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the first value to a second value based on the indication from the user to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon, the increase in the intra-class probability representing the term being more Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 5 likely to be used by the user due to the indication from the user to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon. Final Act. 4. B. Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant contends, The Final Office Action (“Office Action”) dated January 31, 2019 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the references, whether considered alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest “an intra-class probability” nor “increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the first value to a second value based on the indication from the user to add the term to the user's individual lexicon,” as recited in independent claim[ 1]. Appeal Br. 3–4. [W]hile Cohen discloses assigning categories, Cohen does not disclose a probability within one of those categories or groupings. . . . Appellants [] do not dispute that Cohen describes that terms can be included in several categories, that the probabilities of these terms can be increased based on numerous criteria including frequency of use, current relevancy in media, location, etc. However, an intra-class probability is not required to enable these features of Cohen’s model and Cohen does not disclose a probability within one of those categories or groupings. Stated formally, an intra-class probability is thus neither inherently disclosed nor explicitly disclosed. Instead of an intra-class (within the same word class) probability, the probability described in Cohen is an inter-class probability that does not describe a probability of the word within a class P(w|C) (e.g., to distinguish between words of similar meaning or function), as claimed. Appeal Br. 5–6 (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 6 Hwang is silent with respect to the probabilities associated with the words and any modification of the term frequencies in the language model based on this addition. Nor does Hwang teach the more precise modification of an intra-class probability on this basis as required by the claims. As a result, even when combined with Cohen there remains no inherent or express disclosure of a modification of an intra-class probability based on a user’s addition of a term to the user’s lexicon. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). C. As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately explain the Examiner’s findings of fact. D. The arguments regarding the absence of an “intra-class probability” from the Cohen and Hwang references are persuasive. Our review of the rejection on appeal does not find sufficient explanation so as to establish either Cohen or Hwang discloses or suggests such an intra-class probability. Therefore, these arguments by Appellant are sufficient to overcome the rejections. Appeal 2020-001378 Application 15/694,733 7 We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, that there is currently insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that Cohen or Hwang, alone or in combination, teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the argued limitations of claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. CONCLUSION The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–13, 15– 19 103 Cohen, Hwang 1–13, 15– 19 14, 20 103 Cohen, Hwang, Franz 14, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation