Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 29, 2021

2020004946 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2021)

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.
14/744,820 06/19/2015 Rod D. Waltermann RPS920150012USNP(710.437) 2966
58127 7590 11/29/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
WATHEN, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2198
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2021 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 ROD D. WALTERMANN, HERMANN FRANZ BURGMEIER,
and TIMOTHY WINTHROP KINGSBURY
________________

Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before LARRY J. HUME, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD.
is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820

2
INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to a virtual assistant running on an
electronic device. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a virtual assistant running on an electronic
device, a user input, wherein the virtual assistant is associated
with default functionality;
processing, using the virtual assistant, the user input;
additionally processing separately from the processing by
the virtual assistant, using a module running and processing in
parallel to the virtual assistant and directed to a subject area of
the received user input, the user input, wherein the module is
selected by a user and is associated with a functionality directed
to the subject area and is different from the default functionality
of the virtual assistant, wherein the module comprises a modular
extension and a body of knowledge corresponding to a
knowledge area of the user input of the virtual assistant not in the
virtual assistant core functionality;
combining, using a processor, a response to the user input
issued by the virtual assistant and a response to the user input
issued by the module, wherein the combining comprises more
than one response at least one of the responses provided by the
processing of the virtual assistant and at least one other response
provided by the processing of the module; and
providing a response, using the combined response, to the
user input.
Appeal Br. 35 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kennewick (US 2004/0044516 A1; published Mar.
4, 2004). Final Act. 2–13.
Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820

3
The Examiner rejects claims 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kennewick and Gupta (US
2016/0188671 A1; filed Dec. 29, 2014). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1–20 and 22 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Kennewick teaches parser 118 receiving
commands and sending the commands to specific agents 106 that agent
manager 154 loads and initializes during boot-up, which the Examiner maps
to the limitation “additionally processing separately from the processing by
the virtual assistant, using a module running and processing in parallel to the
virtual assistant” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7–9 (citing Kennewick ¶¶ 92, 93,
186, Figs. 1, 2); Final Act. 2–3 (citing Kennewick ¶¶ 84, 91, 185, 187,
Figs. 3, 4B). The Examiner finds Kennewick teaches presenting compound
results to a user when the user utters a phrase to a parser 118 that causes a
sending of a query to agents 106, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
“combining, using a processor, a response to the user input issued by the
virtual assistant and a response to the user input issued by the module”
recited in claim 1. Ans. 7–9 (citing Kennewick ¶¶ 92, 93, 186, Figs. 1, 2);
Final Act. 4–5 (citing Kennewick ¶ 186, Fig. 4B). The Examiner concludes
that a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) at the
time of the invention would have modified Kennewick’s system agent to
have a default functionality of an access database containing a user’s profile
such that the device would have as many default services as possible so as to
avoid the necessity and hassle of downloading every domain agent to
process queries. Final Act. 5 (citing Kennewick ¶ 186).
Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820

4
Appellant argues that the Examiner merely provides a conclusory
statement claiming that the combination of references would be obvious to a
PHOSITA. Appeal Br. 30; Reply Br. 32. Appellant argues Kennewick
merely teaches speech processing natural language queries that invoke a
single agent rather than multiple agents required by the claim 1 limitation
“additionally processing separately from the processing by the virtual
assistant, using a module running and processing in parallel to the virtual
assistant.” Appeal Br. 30–31; Reply Br. 31–32. In addition, Appellant
argues that Kennewick teaches the agents are extensions of a parser or
speech processing unit, not separate modules that are running in parallel to
the parser. Appeal Br. 31–32; Reply Br. 33–34. Appellant argues
Kennewick merely teaches a system to reflect a personality or tone to
generate more human responses rather than the limitation “combining, using
a processor, a response to the user input issued by the virtual assistant and a
response to the user input issued by the module” recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 31–32; Reply Br. 34.
As an initial matter, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner merely provides a conclusory statement claiming that the
combination of references would be obvious to a PHOSITA. Appeal Br. 30;
Reply Br. 32. We disagree with Appellant’s argument because it ignores
that the Examiner provides evidence (i.e., the Examiner cites to Kennewick
¶ 186) to support the determination of obviousness. In particular, the
Examiner concludes that a PHOSITA would have modified Kennewick’s
system agent to have a default functionality of an access database containing
a user’s profile such that the device would have as many default services as
Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820

5
possible so as to avoid the necessity and hassle of downloading every
domain agent to process queries. Final Act. 5 (citing Kennewick ¶ 186).
In addition, Kennewick teaches parser 118 (i.e., virtual assistant)
receiving commands and sending the commands to specific agents 106 (i.e.,
modules) that agent manager 154 loads and initializes during boot-up (i.e.,
module running and processing in parallel to virtual assistant), which teaches
the limitation “additionally processing separately from the processing by the
virtual assistant, using a module running and processing in parallel to the
virtual assistant” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7–9 (citing Kennewick ¶¶ 92, 93,
186, Figs. 1, 2); Final Act. 2–3 (citing Kennewick ¶¶ 84, 91, 185, 187, Figs.
3, 4B).
Kennewick teaches presenting compound (i.e., combining) results to a
user when the user utters a phrase to a parser 118 (i.e., virtual assistant) that
causes a sending of a query to agents 106 (i.e., module), which teaches the
limitation “combining, using a processor, a response to the user input issued
by the virtual assistant and a response to the user input issued by the
module” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7–9 (citing Kennewick ¶¶ 92, 93, 186,
Figs. 1, 2); Final Act. 4–5 (citing Kennewick ¶ 186, Fig. 4B).
Appellant does not argue claims 2–20 and 22 separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 29–33. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 22; and (2) dependent
claims 2–10 and 12–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Claims 21 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner determines that Kennewick teaches a virtual assistant,
which is in the same field of endeavor as the present claims. Ans. 10. And
the Examiner determines that Gupta teaches an opportunity to download a
Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820

6
virtual digital assistant, which is in the same field of endeavor as the present
claims. Id. at 10–11 (citing Gupta ¶¶ 63, 64).
Appellant argues Kennewick and Gupta are in a wholly different field
of endeavor. Appeal Br. 32; Reply Br. 34–35. Appellant argues Gupta’s
add-on module fails to teach a module running in parallel because Gupta’s
module is add-on rather than a separate module that runs in parallel with a
virtual assistant. Appeal Br. 32–33; Reply Br. 35. We disagree with
Appellant.
At the outset, Appellant does not provide sufficient reasons as to why
Kennewick and Gupta are in a wholly different field of endeavor; rather,
Appellant’s argument appears conclusory at best. Even if Appellant’s
argument were not conclusory, we agree with the Examiner’s determination
that Kennewick teaches a virtual assistant, which is in the same field of
endeavor as the present claims. Ans. 10. And we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that Gupta teaches an opportunity to download a virtual
digital assistant, which is in the same field of endeavor as the present claims.
Id. at 10–11 (citing Gupta ¶¶ 63, 64).
Furthermore, Appellant’s argument that Gupta’s add-on module fails
to teach a module running in parallel because Gupta’s module is add-on
rather than a separate module that runs in parallel with a virtual assistant is
unavailing. Appeal Br. 32–33; Reply Br. 35. Appellant’s argument is
misplaced because one cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking
references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner
relies on Gupta to teach presenting an opportunity to download the virtual
Appeal 2020-004946
Application 14/744,820

7
assistant and Kennewick, as discussed above, to teach the virtual assistant
running in parallel with a separate module. Ans. 11–12 (citing Gupta ¶¶ 63,
64, Figs. 4B, 4C); Final Act. 13 (citing Kennewick ¶ 92; Gupta ¶¶ 63, 64,
Figs. 4B, 4C).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20, 22 103 Kennewick 1–20, 22
21 103 Kennewick, Gupta 21
Overall
Outcome
1–22

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