13992727 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2017)

Ex Parte Baron

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 2017

13992727 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2017)

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. 13/992,727 06/08/2013 Charles Baron ITL.2618US (P41978) 8025 47795 7590 07/28/2017 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 EXAMINER KARKI, PARAS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/28/2017 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): tphpto@tphm.com Inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES BARON Appeal 2017-004161 Application 13/992,727 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-004161 Application 13/992,727 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 14, 15, 17—19, and 27—30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an electric device which “receive[s] a touch selection of an element on a touch screen,” and in response “enter[s] a listening mode for a voice command spoken by a user of the device” (Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for controlling an electronic device, comprising: receiving a touch selection of text displayed on a touch screen of the electronic device; and in response to receiving the touch selection, entering a listening mode, including activating a microphone, to receive a speech input to modify the text. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Koshiba US 2003/0125943 A1 July 3, 2003 Zhu US 7,769,394 B1 Aug. 3, 2010 Schmidt US 2010/0222086 A1 Sept. 2, 2010 2 Appeal 2017-004161 Application 13/992,727 Ranford MacLaurin Gruber US 2011/0074693 A1 US 2012/0166522 A1 US 2012/0265528 A1 Mar. 31,2011 June 28, 2012 Oct. 18,2012 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 17, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber, in view of Schmidt. Final Act. 3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber, in view of Schmidt and MacLaurin. Final Act. 10. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber, in view of Schmidt and Koshiba. Final Act. 11. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber, in view of Schmidt and Zhu. Final Act. 11. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber, in view of Schmidt and Ranford. Final Act. 12. The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gruber and Schmidt teaches or suggests “in response to receiving the touch selection, entering a listening mode, including activating a microphone, to receive a speech input to modify the text,” as recited in claim 1. ISSUE 3 Appeal 2017-004161 Application 13/992,727 ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer, Advisory Action, and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Appellant argues “Gruber explicitly teaches away” because “the microphone is always active” and that “[t]he argument that ‘actively elicited speech input’ in Gruber requires that you first turn on a microphone that was off, is entirely unsupported” (App. Br. 5). Appellant further contends that “the argument that tapping on the microphone icon (Gruber at | 182) turns on the microphone is unsubstantiated. It simply indicates the system is alerted to accept a microphone input. It does not say that the microphone is turned on” (App. Br. 5). Appellant additionally contends the Examiner has “effectively” made an inherency argument but has not met the requisite burden (Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “[Gjruber teaches activating the virtual assistant button or the [microphone] button to activate speech input mode” (Advisory Act. 2, citing Gruber Fig. 12,1182). The Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, that “Gruber teaches ‘[i]f the user taps on the text, it shows alternative interpretations’” (Ans. 4, quoting Gruber 1328; see also Fig. 26B), and thereafter Gruber teaches “‘user selection 136 among the displayed choices 4 Appeal 2017-004161 Application 13/992,727 can be achieved by . . . actively elicited speech input’” (Ans. 5, quoting Gruber 1329). Appellant’s arguments regarding whether Gruber’s microphone is or is not “turned on” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which merely requires “activating a microphone,” and Appellant does not point to any limiting definition of “activating” in the Specification. Such activation occurs when the microphone button icon on the screen is touched, as shown by first of the two embodiments taught by Gruber. See Gruber 1182. Appellant’s argument regarding the Examiner’s burden relating to an inherency argument is not persuasive when the Examiner has made an obviousness rejection. Here, the Examiner has shown Gruber teaches both (1) eliciting speech input in response to a touch selection of a microphone icon that activates the microphone (Gruber 1182), and (2) eliciting speech input to modify text based on text displayed on a touch screen (Gruber H 328—329). The combination of these elements, corresponding to Appellant’s claimed method, is an improvement that is no more “than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” that “a person of ordinary skill can implement.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 27 and 28 commensurate in scope, and claims 3—8, 14, 15, 17—19, and 29-30 not separately argued. See App. Br. 5-6. 5 Appeal 2017-004161 Application 13/992,727 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Gruber and Schmidt teaches or suggests “in response to receiving the touch selection, entering a listening mode, including activating a microphone, to receive a speech input to modify the text,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—8, 14, 15, 17—19, and 27—30 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6