Ex Parte Ban et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2014

11291541 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014)

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.
11/291,541 12/01/2005 Oliver Keren Ban AUS920050686US1 2549
7590 03/12/2014
J. B. Kraft
710 Colorado Street #5C
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
BAKER, MATTHEW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2014 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 OLIVER KEREN BAN, TIMOTHY ALAN DIETZ,
and ANOTHONY CAPPA SPIELBERG
____________

Appeal 2011-007394
Application 11/291,541
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007394
Application 11/291,541

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 3-15, 21, and 23-25, all the claims pending in the
application. Claim 2, 16-20, and 22 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to the visualization and
annotation of the content of business and like meetings with several
participants on computer controlled display systems. Spec. 1:4-6.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer controlled audio method for providing a visualized
outline and index to a live meeting of a plurality of individuals present at the
meeting comprising:
recording a sequential audio file of the meeting;
identifying by sound each spoken portion of the audio file with each
of said plurality of individuals;
converting the audio file to a sequential text document;
analyzing the sequential text file for selected spoken terminology;
sequentially displaying said text document; and
displaying in association with said text document a sequential
annotated graph, running concurrently with said sequential displayed text
and visualizing the frequency of said selected spoken terminology with
respect to each of said plurality of identified individuals speaking the
selected terminology.
Appellants appeal the following five rejections:
R1. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wolff (US 7,310,517 B2; Dec. 18, 2007) in view
of Sato (US 6,370,533 B1; Apr. 9, 2002) and Lalanne (Denis Lalanne et al.,
A Research Agenda for Assessing the Utility of Document Annotations in
Multimedia Databases of Meeting Recordings, PROC. 29TH VLDB CONF.
(2003)) (Ans. 4);
Appeal 2011-007394
Application 11/291,541

3
R2. Claims 3, 13, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wolff in view of Sato, Lalanne, and Erol (US
7,298,930 B1; Nov. 20, 2007) (Ans. 7);
R3. Claims 4, 9, 14, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wolff in view of Sato, Lalanne, and Chen (US
7,117,437 B2; Oct. 3, 2006) (Ans. 8);
R4. Claims 5-8, 15, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wolff in view of Sato, Lalanne, Chen, and Erol
(Ans. 10); and
R5. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wolff in view of Sato, Lalanne, and Byers (US 6,219,645
B1; Apr. 17, 2001) (Ans. 14).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 21
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Wolff, Sato, and Lalanne teach or suggest “a live meeting of a plurality of
individuals present at the meeting” and “displaying in association with said
text document a sequential annotated graph, running concurrently with said
sequential displayed text,” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added)?
Appellants first contend that neither Wolff nor Sato is “concerned
with the recording of audio at live meetings,” as claimed. App. Br. 14-15;
Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner found that “a recitation of the intended use of the
claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed
Appeal 2011-007394
Application 11/291,541

4
invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed
invention from the prior art.” Ans. 15. We agree with the Examiner.
Wolff provides that audio information communicated between
communication devices used by members of a group are monitored and
recorded. Ans. 4 (citing Wolff, col. 3, ll. 22-25).
We find that the claimed “live” is non-functional descriptive material
because the word “live” does not functionally change how the audio is
recorded and displayed, and thus we need not give the “live” aspect any
patentable weight.
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Nonfunctional
descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have
otherwise been obvious.); see also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276
(BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff’d, In re Mathias, 191 Fed. Appx. 959
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
As such, we find that the claimed “live meeting” reads on the above-
noted disclosure of Wolff.
Appellants next contend that “there is a complete absence in Sato of
any sequential displayed text document run concurrently with the graph.”
App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner found that Lalanne discloses
“a graph displayed concurrently with transcribed text.” Ans. 17. We agree
with the Examiner.
Specifically, Lalanne discloses a system for displaying transcribed
text with a graph representation of the meeting in a synchronized manner.
Appeal 2011-007394
Application 11/291,541

5
See Lalanne, Fig. 4. In other words, Lalanne illustrates that text and graph
may be disclosed at the same time. And as found by the Examiner, the
combination of “Sato’s graph with Lalanne’s display layout of a graph
displayed simultaneously with transcribed text would provide the predictable
results of a graph showing the frequency of terminology used by each
identified speaker in the displayed concurrently running text document.”
Ans. 17.
Here, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the
collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)). This reasoning is
applicable here.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, essentially for the reasons
indicated by the Examiner. Claims 10, 11, and 21, not separately argued, are
sustained for similar reasons.
Claims 3-9, 12-15, and 23-25
Regarding dependent claims 3-9, 12-15, and 23-25, while Appellants
raised additional arguments for patentability of the cited claims (App. Br.
17-21), we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every
Appeal 2011-007394
Application 11/291,541

6
one of those arguments supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 18-22.
Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning,
which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we find no error
in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3-9, 12-15, and 23-25.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections R1-R5.
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).

AFFIRMED

bab