Ex Parte Boldl

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2003

08802828 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HERBERT BOLDL
______________
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, DIXON, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of clams 1-3 and 5-17. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A dictation apparatus for storing a speech signal in
addressable memory means, the device comprising
- input means for receiving the speech signal,
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
2
- data compression means for data compressing the speech
signal into a data compressed speech signal, the data compression
means being adapted to carry out a data compression step on the
speech signal in one of at least two different data compression
modes, the at least two different data compression modes
resulting in different data compression ratios when applied to
the same speech signal, the said at least two different data
compression modes being selectable by a user, the data
compression means being further adapted to create data files
comprising a data compressed speech signal, the data files
comprising a header portion, the data compression means being
also adapted to generate an identifier signal identifying the
data compression mode selected and being adapted to store said
identifier signal in said header portion,
- storing means for storing the data files in the memory
means, the storing means comprising address generator means for
generating addresses for said addressable memory means, for
storing blocks of information comprised in a data file in the
memory means,
- control means selectively operable by a user for providing
an insert signal and an end of insert signal,
- pointing vector generator means for generating a block of
pointing vectors in response to the occurrence of each insert
signal, said block of pointing vectors comprising a first address
signal corresponding to an address of where a dictation insert
should be placed in the data file and a second address signal
corresponding to a beginning address of an available portion of
said addressable memory for storing the dictation insert.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Baron 4,053,840 Oct. 11, 1977
Mozer et al. (Mozer) 4,384,170 May 17, 1983
Oye et al. (Oye) 4,791,660 Dec. 13, 1988
Bissonnette et al.
(Bissonnette) 5,602,963 Feb. 11, 1997
(filed Oct. 12, 1993)
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Second Edition, pages 294-95
(1994).
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
3
All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to claims 1-3, 5 and 6, the examiner relies upon Bissonnette
in view of Mozer or Baron or Oye, with the addition of
appellant's admitted prior art and the Computer Dictionary as to
claims 7-11. The rejection of dependent claim 12 and the
remaining claims 13-17 is questionable. As stated at pages 6-7
of the answer, it appears to us that the rejection of these
claims is logically flawed on its face unless the examiner
implicitly intends to further build upon the two previously
stated rejections for claims 1-3 and 5-11. In the third and
fourth stated rejection as to claims 12-17, the examiner's intent
appears to merely add Sugiyama respectively to the first and
second stated rejections.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
4
As disclosed and depicted in specification Figure 6, in
response to the generation of an insert signal from the insert
key 8 in Figure 1, a pointing vector generator generates a block
of pointing vectors 29 in Figure 6 having a respective first
address signal (n) which specifies the location where dictated
insert should be inserted in the data file (F), and a second
address signal (p) which indicates the beginning address of an
available portion of addressable memory for actually storing the
insert itself. Although not set forth in independent claims 1
and 13 on appeal, a third address vector location (q) identifies
the ending address of the dictated insert.
It is thus apparent that the dispute revolves around the
stated first and second address signals generated by the claimed
pointing vector generator means in representative independent
claim 1 on appeal. Corresponding features are recited in
independent claim 13 on appeal as well. It is this clause at the
end of representative claim 1 on appeal that appellant rightly
argues that the examiner has not proven to be taught or suggested
among the prior art applied. Appellant's arguments do not
dispute the proper combinability within 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the
references relied upon, but only assuming a proper combination is
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
5
made, that all the features of the claimed invention, namely,
the pointing vector generating means clause of representative
independent claim 1 on appeal is not taught or suggested. We
agree.
The examiner's reasoning relies entirely upon Bissonnette
for this feature. His voice activated personal organizer is
shown in Figure 2 to include an edit key which is unnumbered.
Furthermore, we recognize that in accordance with the abstract,
for the different functions attributed to this device, the user
may have the ability to edit them by eliminating or correcting
the data entered or entering new data. It appears that this
latter feature of entering new data is considered by the examiner
to be analogous to the claimed inserting feature.
According to the architecture of Bissonnette's device in
Figure 1, the DRAM 22 stores the data. This memory is discussed
briefly in the paragraph at the middle of column 6 and more
extensively beginning at the bottom of column 7 through the end
of column 8. We do not agree with the examiner's views as to the
teachings at column 8 that Bissonnette teaches or otherwise
suggests to the artisan within 35 U.S.C. § 103 the data
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
6
structures correlating to the block of pointing vectors which
comprise the claimed first and second address signals. There is
no teaching here, and none anywhere else in the drawings and text
of Bissonnette, which correlates to the claimed first address
signal corresponding to a address where a dictation insert should
be placed in the data file comprising data compressed speech
signals. There is also no second address signal as claimed
corresponding to the beginning address of an available portion of
the addressable memory in the DRAM 22 for storing the dictation
insert itself. We reach this conclusion because there is no
additional pertinent teaching or discussion of the editing
functions generally noted with respect to Figures 4, 7, 8, 9 and
15-17 and the manner in which any editing or additional insert-
type information is stored within the memory 22 itself.
The examiner has not convinced us that the data structures
associated with memory 22 in Bissonnette correlate to the claimed
pointing vectors comprising first address signals and second
address signals as claimed. The examiner's additional comments
at pages 2, 8 and 9 of the answer relating to general
understandings in the memory art relating to pointers are noted.
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
7
To the extent the art well recognizes the use of pointers for
storing and accessing memory in various data processing devices
is generally well known, the features recited in independent
claims 1 and 13 on appeal are much more specific than any
generalization that can reasonably be made on the basis of the
applied prior art. Neither the examiner's generalizations
nor our review of Bissonnette indicates that pointers were
generally used in the art to indicate a point in already dictated
speech where an insert is to be placed and the location in memory
where the insert is actually stored, both of which correlate to
the claimed first and second address signals.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal is reversed.
According to the examiner's formulation of the various
rejections, the additional prior art is relied upon for different
features and not the disputed feature as appellant notes at page
6 of the brief. As such, the reversal is extended to the
respective dependent claims, and the additional prior art fails
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
8
to make up for the disputed feature in independent claims 1 and
13 on appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
rejecting all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Joseph L. Dixon ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Howard B. Blankenship )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT/cam
Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
9
Corporate Patent Counsel
US Philips Corporation
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591