Ex Parte Carmiel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2013

11136518 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YISHAY CARMIEL and ASAF CARMIEL
___________

Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 20-36. Claims 1-19 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to generating a voice interface for
appliances, which may be performed by a manufacturer of the appliance.
The manufacturer selects a programmable device for controlling the
appliance and is further provided with an application development kit for
building an application for the voice interface including a speech recognition
module. (Abstract.)
Claim 20 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
20. A method for enabling an appliance manufacturer to
develop a specific speech recognition voice interface for a specific
appliance, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a generic manufacturer independent application
development kit for use on embedded devices, the kit capable of
developing different embedded speech recognition voice interface
applications for different appliances manufactured by same or
different appliance manufacturers;
(b) providing an embedded programmable device for
controlling the specific appliance; and
(c) enabling the appliance manufacturer to program the
embedded programmable device with a specific speech recognition
voice interface application developed using the generic application
development kit, thereby providing an embedded speech recognition
voice interface which allows the specific appliance to be operated by
voice inputs,
whereby the generic development kit reduces bottlenecks
created by limited storage and limited central processing unit
resources of the embedded programmable device.
Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

3
Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Hab-Umbach (U.S. Patent No. 5,950,166; Sept. 7, 1999), Plan
(U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0161449 Al; Aug. 28, 2003),
and Applebaum (U.S. Patent No. 6,463,413 B1; Oct. 8, 2002).
Claims 24-30 and 32-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Hab-Umbach, Plan, Applebaum, and Naylor (U.S. Patent
No. 6,804,642 B1; Oct. 12, 2004).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Hab-Umbach, Applebaum, Naylor, and Ruhl (U.S. Patent No.
6,108,631; Aug. 22, 2000).

ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 14) that the
combination of Hab-Umbach, Plan, and Applebaum would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 20, which includes the limitation
“different appliances manufactured by same or different appliance
manufacturers . . . enabling the appliance manufacturer to program.”
The Examiner found that the car radio, the CD-player, the car
telephone, the navigation system or the radio data system of Hab-Umbach
corresponds to the limitation “different appliances.” (Ans. 5; Hab-Umbach,
col. 3, l. 58 to col. 4, l. 22) The Examiner further found that the
programmable controls of Hab-Umbach correspond to the limitation
“enabling the appliance manufacturer to program.” (Ans. 20; Hab-Umbach,
col. 4, ll. 7-13.) We agree with the Examiner.
Hab-Umbach relates to “[a] speech-actuated control system for use
with a consumer product.” (Abstract.) Hab-Umbach explains that the
Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

4
speech-actuated control system can be used to control various consumer
products, including a car radio, a CD-player, a car telephone, a navigation
system, a radio data system (RDS) or other car functionality (e.g., window
or temperature control). (Col. 3, ll. 23-35.) Furthermore, Hab-Umbach
explains that various incremental controls for such consumer products are
programmable. (Col. 4, ll. 7-13.) Thus, Hab-Umbach teaches the limitation
“different appliances manufactured by same or different appliance
manufacturers . . . enabling the appliance manufacturer to program.”
Appellants argue that Hab-Umbach “is not designed to enable a
manufacturer of appliances to manufacture appliances” but “is designed for
a user to operate different appliances by uttering different words to the
different parts of a single integrated system, such as a car.” (Br. 14.)
However, the claim limitation “enabling the appliance manufacturer to
program” is broad enough to encompass the speech-actuated control system
of Hab-Umbach, which controls difference appliances (e.g., a car radio, a
CD-player, a car telephone, a navigation system or an RDS).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hab-
Umbach, Plan, and Applebaum would have rendered obvious independent
claim 20, which includes the limitation “different appliances manufactured
by same or different appliance manufacturers . . . enabling the appliance
manufacturer to program.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 14-18)
that the combination of Hab-Umbach, Plan, and Applebaum would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 20, which includes the limitation “the
kit capable of developing different . . . speech recognition voice interface
applications.”
Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

5
The Examiner found that the designer tool kit modules of Plan
corresponds to the limitation “the kit capable of developing different . . .
speech recognition voice interface applications.” (Ans. 5-6, 21; Plan,
¶ [0016].) We agree with the Examiner.
Plan relates to interactive voice response (IVR) services (¶ [0002])
and provides a method for implementing a customized dynamic interactive
voice system for a customer, including a call flow that incorporates multiple
call flow nodes (¶ [0016]). Plan explains that “[t]he different node types
include at least one standard node and at least one preprogrammed designer
tool kit module, each designer tool kit module including an application
separate from the predetermined interactive voice response application”
such that “[t]he designer tool kit modules may be an automatic attendant
module or a names directory module.” (Id.) Thus, Plan teaches the
limitation “the kit capable of developing different . . . speech recognition
voice interface applications.”
Appellants argue that “[i]n IVR, a voice recognition application [of
Plan] runs on a server with large computing resources, which are totally
missing in both consumer and non-consumer appliances.” (Br. 14.)
However, Plan explains that the designer tool kit module is separate from the
interactive voice response application. (¶ [0016].)
Appellants also argue “that Plan does not teach speech recognition
voice interfaces, or even voice interfaces at all.” (Br. 15.) However, the
Examiner cited Hab-Umbach, rather than Plan, for teaching the limitation
“speech recognition voice interface.” (Ans. 4.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hab-
Umbach, Plan, and Applebaum would have rendered obvious independent
Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

6
claim 20, which includes the limitation “the kit capable of developing
different . . . speech recognition voice interface applications.”
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 18-19) that
the combination of Hab-Umbach, Plan, and Applebaum would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 20, which includes the limitation
“whereby the generic development kit reduces bottlenecks created by limited
storage and limited central processing unit resources of the embedded
programmable device.”
The Examiner found that the speech recognition architecture of
Applebaum, with speech models that add to a lexicon on a customized basis,
corresponds to the limitation “whereby the generic development kit reduces
bottlenecks created by limited storage and limited central processing unit
resources of the embedded programmable device.” (Ans. 7-8; Applebaum,
col. 1, ll. 40-52.) We agree with the Examiner.
Applebaum relates to “[a] distributed speech processing system for
constructing speech recognition reference models that are to be used by a
speech recognizer in a small hardware device,” for example, a personal
digital assistant (PDA) or cellular telephone. (Abstract.) A distributed
speech recognition architecture of Applebaum permits “the consumer
product can add words to the lexicon” such that “the consumer product does
not need the resources required for creating new speech models” and
includes “autonomous during speech recognition . . . such that it does not
need to be connected to a remote server device.” (Col. 1, ll. 40-52.) Thus,
Applebaum teaches the limitation “whereby the generic development kit
reduces bottlenecks created by limited storage and limited central processing
unit resources of the embedded programmable device.”
Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

7
Appellants argue that “[i]n Applebaum, the appliance needs to be
connected to a remote server through a network during speech reference
training” and accordingly, “Applebaum cannot be implemented in
manufacturing appliances that lack access to large computing resources.”
(Br. 19.) However, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope
with claim 20, because the claim does not expressly exclude a remote server.
Furthermore, Applebaum explains that the distributed speech recognition
architecture does not need to be connected to a remote server device (col. 1,
ll. 50-52) and accordingly, teaches the limitation “reduces bottlenecks
created by limited storage and limited central processing unit resources.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hab-
Umbach, Plan, and Applebaum would have rendered obvious independent
claim 20, which includes the limitation “whereby the generic development
kit reduces bottlenecks created by limited storage and limited central
processing unit resources of the embedded programmable device.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 21-23 depend from claim 20, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 20.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of claims 24-30
and 32-36 separately (Br. 21-22), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of these claims are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “[a]lthough Naylor
Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

8
teaches using assembly language for the recognizer source code, this is for
analyzing speech data and has nothing to do with using a generic application
development kit to program different appliances with different speech
recognition functionality.” (Br. 22.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 20, which recites
limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 24
and 30. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 31 separately (Br. 23-24), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim is
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “Naylor is not
concerned with and does not teach anything relating to programming an
appliance with speech recognition functions or manufacturing appliances
with different speech recognition functionality” and “Ruhl does not teach
speech recognition voice interfaces in the sense of the present invention,
speech recognition voice interface applications or generic development kits
for such speech recognition voice interface applications.” (Br. 24.) We are
not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
claim 30, from which claim 31 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20-36 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)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2011-003860
Application 11/136,518

9
AFFIRMED

msc