12241837 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2015)

Ex Parte Buck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 2015

12241837 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2015)

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. 12/241,837 09/30/2008 Markus Buck P06087US## (HMN13348) 7769 116844 7590 05/26/2015 ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP 806 SW Broadway, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97205 EXAMINER DORVIL, RICHEMOND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2015 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 MARKUS BUCK, TIM HAULICK, and GERHARD UWE SCHMIDT ____________ Appeal 2013-003862 Application 12/241,837 1 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KIMBERLY J. MCGRAW, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Harman Becker Automotive Systems GMBH. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2013-003862 Application 12/241,837 2 Invention The claimed invention relates to vehicle elements and, in particular, to an adjustment of vehicle elements through a speech control. Spec. 1. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with key limitations emphasized: 1. A speech processing device comprising: an automotive device that provides an interface that filters data that is sent and received across an in-vehicle bus by selectively acquiring vehicle data related to a user vehicle setting[s] [sic] or adjustment of an in-vehicle system, the interface acquires the selected vehicle data from one or more in- vehicle sensors in response to a user's articulation of a first code phrase; a memory that stores the selected vehicle data with unique identifying data including individual voice characteristics associated with the user within the vehicle that establishes a connection between the selected vehicle data and the user and to differentiate the user from other different users when a second code phrase is articulated by the user; and a data interface that provides access to the selected vehicle data and relationship data retained in the memory and enables the processing of the data to customize an in-vehicle system, where the data interface is responsive to the user's articulation of a third code phrase to process the selected vehicle data that customizes the vehicle. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Holzrichter et al., US 6,006,175 Dec. 21, 1999 Wolf, M. et al., “Security in Automotive Bus Systems”, escrypt GmbH, (2004) Takami et al., US 2004/0030560 A1 Feb. 12, 2004 Appeal 2013-003862 Application 12/241,837 3 Zhang, et al., US 2007/0005206 A1 Jan. 04, 2007 Talty, et al., US 2007/0082689 A1 Apr. 12, 2007 Shen et al., US 2007/0124149 A1 May 31, 2007 Agapi et al., US 2008/0015863 A1 Jan. 17, 2008 Herforth et al., US 2008/0133230 A1 Jun. 5. 2008 Rejections Claims 1–5, 7–10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi and Zhang. Claims 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, and Wolf. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, Wolf, and Herforth. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, and Talty. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, and Shen. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, and Holzrichter. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, and Takami. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi, Zhang, Takami, and Talty. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Agapi and Zhang teaches or suggests “a connection between the selected vehicle data and the Appeal 2013-003862 Application 12/241,837 4 user and to differentiate the user from other different users when a second code phrase is articulated by the user,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, arguing the combination of Agapi and Zhang does not teach the recited elements in their entirety. App. Br. 8 and 9. Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection based on the teachings of Agapi is contradictory and the Examiner is reading additional information into the reference. Id. We have considered Appellants’ arguments but they are not persuasive of Examiner error. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants contend that the cited art does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as Agapi does not teach “a connection between the selected vehicle data and the user to differentiate the user from other different users when a second phrase is articulated by the user.” App. Br. 8. However, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding Zhang. In particular, the Examiner finds that Zhang teaches use of a “speaker identification process to a spoken input from the user” and that “speaker identification is used to link user-specific features such as user specific contact data [and] user-specific pronunciations.” Final Act. 4, citing Zhang ¶¶ 13, 89. The Examiner explains that Zhang teaches speaker dependent recognition for a vehicle voice interface where speaker identification (speaker dependencies based on the users) may be used to provide user-specific features to the user for Appeal 2013-003862 Application 12/241,837 5 personalized recognition and interaction with the system. Ans. 4 citing Zhang, ¶¶ 13 and 89. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding the combination of Agapi and Zhang teaches or suggests “a connection between the selected vehicle data and the user and to differentiate the user from other different users when a second code phrase is articulated by the user,” within the meaning of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants have not provided separate arguments as to the patentability of claims 2–20. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims as well. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests the claim limitations discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and claims 2–20 which were not separately argued. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED mat