Polycom, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 2, 20212020001706 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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. 15/670,572 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation