Ex Parte Butler et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 28, 2003

08909950 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NICHOLAS DAVID BUTLER, JEREMY PETER JAMES HUGHES,
STEPHEN GRAHAM COPINGER LAWRENCE, SUSAN MALAIKA,
and LAWRENCE LEON PORTER
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FLEMING, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 12, all the claims pending in the instant
application.
Invention
The invention relates to a voice processing system which
allows callers to access Internet World Wide Web pages by using
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
2
only the caller’s telephone. See page 1 of Appellants’
specification. Appellants point out that the problem of prior
art systems is that, if an information supplier wishes to change
the information structure, both the voice application and the
HTML pages have to be altered separately. See page 5 of
Appellants’ specification. Another difficulty with the prior art
is that the same voice application commands must be shared by
each Web page accessible through the voice browser. This is
again due to the separation of the voice processing system
commands and the voice processing system data. See pages 5 and 6
of the Appellants’ specification. Appellants overcome the prior
art problems by integrating more closely the voice application
and the HTML pages together. In particular, the voice
application commands as well as the data are contained in the
HTML Web pages. See page 6 of Appellants’ specification.
Independent claim 1 is representative of Appellants’ claimed
invention and is reproduced as follows:
1. A voice processing system for allowing telephone callers
to access Hyper-Text Mark-Up Language (HTML) documents without
the use of a computer, said voice processing system comprising:
caller input/output port connected to a telephone network of
telephone callers;
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
3
processing unit which runs a voice application; and
data communications network input/output port connected to a
data communications network accessing HTML documents;
wherein at least one of said HTML documents has voice
application HTML tags inserted therein, said tags providing the
commands and data required to form said voice application.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Wise et al. (Wise) 5,884,262 Mar. 16, 1999
(Filing date Mar. 28, 1996)
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Wise.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and arguments of Appellants and
the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
4
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants point out that each of the independent claims
recite that a HTML document “has voice application HTML tags
inserted therein, said tags providing the commands and data
required to form said voice application” (e.g., claim 1).
Appellants argue that Wise either teaches nor suggests that the
independent claim language requires that a HMTL document has
voice application tags inserted therein and the tags provide the
commands and data required to form the voice application.
Appellants argue that Wise’s documents are standard HTML
documents with no such voice tags included therein. See page 4
of Appellants’ brief.
Upon our review of Wise, we agree with Appellants that Wise
fails to teach a HTML document which has voice application HTML
tags inserted therein, said tags providing the commands and data
required to form the voice application as recited in all of
Appellants’ claims. Wise teaches that it is the object of the
invention to provide an audio information presentation for
accessing and navigating through electronic documents and
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
5
presenting information contained in the documents which are not
constrained by an audio compatible format. Wise further teaches
that it is a feature of the invention to prevent access to
electronic information, which is not specifically formatted for
audio retrieval. See column 3, lines 19 through 26. Wise
teaches that Figure 2 shows the system architecture of the
preferred embodiment. See column 5, lines 38 through 39. When a
telephone 10 is connected to the system 200, the call manager 210
software implemented on this computer directs the audio file
player 270 to recite a voice prompt, such as “you have reached
the Audio Web Connection . . . .” See column 5, lines 46 through
53. This audio prompt allows the user to select a HTML document
from the World Wide Web. See column 5, lines 53 through 65.
When a document is accessed, it will be processed advantageously
through a parser 230. The parser 230 will interpret the content
of the document. Wise further discloses in columns 6 through
column 7, how the parser 230 converts the HTML document into a
voice message to be sent over the telephone. However, Wise does
not teach that the HTML documents has voice application HTML tags
inserted therein, said tags providing the commands and data
required to form said voice application as recited in Appellants’
claims.
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
6
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Wise.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgc
Appeal No. 2002-1454
Application 08/909,950
7
IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Rd.
Dept. T81/B503, P.O. Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709