Ex Parte Beyerlein

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2012

10479554 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2012)

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.
10/479,554 12/03/2003 Peter Beyerlein DE 010164 5847
7590 06/25/2012
US Philips Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
P O Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
EXAMINER
GODBOLD, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER BEYERLEIN
____________

Appeal 2009-015350
Application 10/479,554
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015350
Application 10/479,554

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-8. We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a method of pattern
processing for speech processing. Abs.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed
limitations in italics):
1. A method of speech processing, comprising the steps of:
- receiving (104) a unique identifier of a user group laid down
for the user, and
- using (105) a pattern processing data set (80 ... 81) specific
to said user group for the processing (110) of a pattern input of
the user.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin NN951273, Vol. 38, Iss.
12, pp. 73-74 (December 1995) (“IBM”).
Claims 4, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over IBM and Mozer (U.S. 6,665,639).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that “a pattern processing data set
specific to the said user group” is inherent in the phonetic model described
by IBM?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Appeal 2009-015350
Application 10/479,554

3
Action and Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response
to the Answer. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner finds that IBM teaches a method including the steps of:
receiving a unique identifier (“asking the user to pick the model he wishes to
use, or by allowing the multiple models to compete as the user supplies
corrections to the output of the system”, 1st paragraph) of a user group laid
down for the user (“phonetic model” described in the 1st paragraph is
selected based on giving accent, dialect age or sex, described in the 2nd
paragraph and is the user group laid down for the user) and using a pattern
processing data set specific to said user group (“phonetic model”). Ans. 3.
The Examiner further explains that although a pattern processing data set is
not specifically mentioned by IBM, it is inherent in a phonetic model,
otherwise the phonetic model would be rendered useless. Ans. 7. The
Examiner directs attention to Parsons1 to demonstrate that phonetic models
constitute a pattern processing data set. Id. The Examiner finds that Parsons
demonstrates how basic phonetic recognition operates and shows several
well-known methods including Hidden Markov Models, Tree Diagrams, and
Lattice models, all of which are pattern matching processing. Ans. 8. The
Examiner further finds that in order for the IBM system to function, it will
inherently use one of these types of pattern matching that is well-known in
the art. Id.
Appellant argues that the IBM reference contains no elaboration
regarding what constitutes the phonetic model referred to therein and does

1 Thomas W. Parsons, Voice and Speech Processing, 321-326 (McGraw
Hill, Inc., 1987).
Appeal 2009-015350
Application 10/479,554

4
not contain any disclosure of any data set, much less a pattern processing
data set. App. Br. 4. Appellant also argues that it is improper on its face for
the Office Action to rely on Parsons in connection with the rejection of
claims 1-8, but instead should be characterized as a rejection that relies upon
Parsons with respect to subject matter recited in the rejected claims. App. Br.
5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
that the claimed pattern processing data set is inherent in IBM’s phonetic
model and directs attention to Parsons as evidence that the pattern
processing data set is inherently present in IBM’s phonetic model. The use
of extrinsic evidence is permissible to show that the missing descriptive
material is necessarily present in the prior art reference description and that
it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co,
U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, Appellant does not
direct us to sufficient objective evidence to refute the Examiner’s finding
that a pattern processing data set is inherent in the phonetic model described
by IBM.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3,
6 and 8 as anticipated by IBM and claims 4, 5 and 7, not separately argued,
as unpatentable over IBM and Mozer.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-3, 6 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by IBM.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over IBM and Mozer.
Appeal 2009-015350
Application 10/479,554

5
TIME PERIOD
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

msc