Polycom, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020001706 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
15/670,572 08/07/2017 Kwan Truong 199-2025US 6199
11422 7590 06/02/2021
Keith Lutsch PC - Poly
801 Travis Street, Suite 1610
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, SHAUN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentdocket@poly.com
patents@keithlutschpc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KWAN TRUONG, YIBO LIU, PETER L. CHU, ZHEMIN TU,
JESSE COLEMAN, CODY SCHNACKER, and ANDREW LOCHBAUM 1
____________________

Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 23. 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(a). According to Appellant, Plantronics, Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572

2
INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to a method and system
for use during a teleconference between two devices, where a signal
indicating a spoken command associated with a command mode is received
and a reply message to the spoken command is generated and output to one
or more of the devices. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
during a teleconference between a first audio input/output
device and a second audio input/output device, receiving, at an
analysis and response device, a signal indicating a spoken
command, the spoken command associated with a command
mode selected based on a wake up message; and
in response to receiving the signal, generating, at the
analysis and response device, a reply message based on the
spoken command, the reply message to be output to one or
more devices selected based on the command mode, wherein
the one or more devices include the first audio input/output
device, the second audio input/output device, or a combination
thereof.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 4, 7 through 11, 14 ,15, 17,
19 through 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Baldwin (US 2013/0141516 A1, published June 6, 2013). Final Act. 3–8.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Baldwin and Konicek (US 2007/0032225 A1,
published February 8, 2007). Final Act. 9–10.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 1,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed January 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”) Final
Office Action mailed April 30, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed November 7, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572

3
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Baldwin and Bangor (US 2008/0181140 A1, published
July 31, 2008). Final Act. 10.
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Baldwin and Shin (US 2016/0255494 A1, September 1,
2016). Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 7 through 11, 14, 15,
17, 19 through 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 5, 6, 16, 18,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that the Examiner misinterpreted the claim term
“command mode” and that when properly interpreted Baldwin does not
anticipate claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–13, Reply Br. 3–8. Specifically, Appellant
argues that the command mode, is generated by a wake up message, dictates
how a device responds and may correspond to a broadcast or local mode.
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶¶24, 25). Appellant argues that the command
mode affects what content is transmitted between devices, and determines
whether received commands are distributed in channels. Appeal Br. 10–11
(citing Spec. ¶¶51, 53, 57). Thus, Appellant asserts that “claim 1 requires
that a command mode, used to determine through which communication
stream to output a reply to a command, is selected based on a wake up
message.” Appeal Br. 12. Based upon this claim interpretation, Appellant
asserts that Baldwin does not teach the claimed command mode as:
Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572

4
there is no indication that the alleged command mode of
Baldwin has any relation to what communication stream is used
to output a reply to a command. Instead, Baldwin teaches that a
system receives a request from a device and outputs a response
to that device. This is no different from many existing
communication systems and does not involve selection of a
communication stream based on a command mode.
Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner interprets the claimed “command mode” broader than
being a local mode or a broadcast mode. Answer 5. The Examiner states
that claim 1 does not recite that the command mode determines which
communication stream to output a reply to a command. Answer 7. Rather,
the Examiner interprets the command mode as:
merely correspond to a mode of the/during the teleconference in
which commands are processed, as opposed to sending the
voice inputs to another device as part of the communication
(mode alerting system to recognize that certain voice inputs are
commands to be processed, and not voice input representing
speech of a conversation or the communication session).
Answer 7. Based upon this interpretation the Examiner explains how
Baldwin discloses the claimed invention. Answer 6, 8, and 9 (citing
Baldwin Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 30, and 53). Further, the Examiner finds
that applying Appellant’s proffered claim interpretation:
Baldwin still teaches where its command mode also refers to
determining through which communication stream to output a
reply to a command as it determines that the reply should not be
included in the communication stream sending speech to the
other party, and determines where the command originated to
determine where the reply is to be transmitted.
Answer 9 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572

5
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Initially, we disagree with Appellant’s proffered
interpretation of the term “command mode” as “used to determine through
which communication stream to output a reply to a command.” Appeal Br.
12. While it is true that we must interpret the claims in light of the
Specification we do not import limitations not recited into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites no limitation
directed to communication streams, therefore to apply the Appellant’s
proffered interpretation would be importing limitations from the
Specification into the claims. Further, this interpretation does not seem to be
consistent with the Specification which in the embodiment of Figure 4
depicts a reply when the command mode is set to local mode where the reply
is not associated with a communication stream. See also Spec. ¶ 64. Rather,
claim 1 recites “the spoken command [is] associated with a command mode
selected based upon a wake up message” and “the reply message to be
output to one or more devices selected based on the command mode.”
Thus, we consider the command mode to be a mode that is associated
with the spoken command and dictates which device on which the reply to
the spoken command is to be output. We additionally note, that the claim
does not preclude the spoken command, and “command mode” associated
therewith, from also dictating actions taken in response to the spoken
command and the content of the reply message.3 As Appellant’s arguments

3 We note that Appellant’s Specification identifies that the spoken command
can include three components or words: including a wake up phrase (“wake
up”) a command mode phrase (e.g. “broadcast” or “local”) and a request for
information (e.g. “weather”). However there is no limitation in claim 1
Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572

6
directed to the Baldwin reference are premised upon the overly narrow claim
interpretation, they have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Nonetheless, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Baldwin
discloses the claimed invention. Baldwin teaches a system in which a user
provides a spoken command, and a reply is generated based upon the spoken
command. Baldwin ¶¶ 31, 51, and 53. Specifically, Baldwin discuses as an
example a user speaking the word “command” followed by “hold”, which is
a spoken command that functions as a wakeup message and command of
what function or mode the system is to be placed in. Baldwin ¶ 31.4
Baldwin teaches that spoken command can be used to perform other
functions including look up information, report information, and send
messages. Baldwin ¶¶ 37, 51. Further, Baldwin teaches the system can
generate notifications to the user (a reply), that not every command produces
a notification, and that the notifications can be provided to one user without
providing notifications to the other users. Baldwin ¶ 53. As Baldwin
teaches that not every command produces a notification, we consider
Baldwin’s spoken commands that require a reply to the user, to be associated
with a command mode that identify the device to provide a reply message.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of

which requires all three elements, as such a spoken command that contains
two, a single word wake up command and a single word command (which
includes information that dictates which device to reply to) meets the claim.
Spec. ¶¶ 25, 29.
4 We consider the operating function of the telecommunication system (e.g.
hold, conference) to be a mode applying Appellant’s proffered definition of
a mode as “a particular functioning arrangement or condition” as asserted by
Appellant. Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-001706
Application 15/670,572

7
independent claim 1. As Appellant grouped claims 2 through 4, 7 through
11, 14, 15, 19 through 21, and 23 with claim 1, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal Br. 13–14.
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims, 6,
16, 18, and 22, Appellant argues that the additional teachings of Konicek
Bangor, and Shin do not teach the claim 1 limitation disputed in the
anticipation rejection. Appeal Br. 14–17. As discussed above, we concur
with the Examiner that Baldwin anticipates the limitations of claim 1, and as
such are unpersuaded that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections are in
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 6, 16, 18, and 22.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 – 4, 7–11,
14, 15, 17,
19– 21, 23
102 Baldwin 1–4, 7–11,
14, 15, 17,
19– 21, 23

5, 6, 22 103 Baldwin, Konicek 5, 6, 22
16 103 Baldwin, Bangor 16
18 103 Baldwin, Shin 18
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 14–
23

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