Ex Parte Chadha

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

10957482 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte LOVLEEN CHADHA
_____________

Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1-20.
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed February 25, 2010, the
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 27, 2010, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed July 27, 2010 for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

INVENTION
The invention is directed to hands-free voice-activated devices that
are capable of recognizing voice commands from specific users. See
Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below
(bracketed matter and paragraphing added):
1. A method for recognizing a voice by a device, the
method comprising:
[(a)] receiving, by a device adapted for voice activation,
voice input including an identifier unique to the device;
[(b)] determining, by the device, in response to the
reception of the voice input by the device and not any other
activating input, if the voice input is associated with a
recognized user associated with the device;
[(c)] determining, by the device, in response to the
determination that the voice input is associated with the
recognized user associated with the device, a command
associated with the voice input; and
[(d)] executing the command by the device.
Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rabin (US 6,081,782, Jun. 27, 2000) and
Potamitis (Ilyas Potamitis et al., An Integrated System for Smart-Home
Control of Appliances Based on Remote Speech Interaction, Proc. 8th
European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology,
EUROSPEECH 2003, pp. 2197-2200). Ans. 4-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 10-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, and French-St.
George (US 6,012,030, Jun. 4, 2000). Ans. 7-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, and Bi (US 6,324,509 B1, Nov.
27, 2001). Ans. 13-14.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, and Potter (US 5,729,659, May 17,
1998). Ans. 14.
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, French-St. George, and Potter. Ans. 14-
15.
The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, French-St. George, and Bi. Ans.
15.

Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482

4

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS1
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br.
1-6), the principal and dispositive issues of whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting exemplary claim 1 turn on whether Rabin describes a “determining,
by the device, in response to the reception of the voice input by the device
and not any other activating input, if the voice input is associated with a
recognized user associated with the device” (as per claim 1(b), hereinafter
the “speaker verification” feature) and “determining, by the device, in
response to the determination that the voice input is associated with the
recognized user associated with the device, a command associated with the
voice input” (as per claim 1(c), hereinafter the “command recognition”
feature).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.

1 According to Appellant, claims 10 and 20 recite features similar to claim 1
(App. Br. 6). Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for purposes of
this appeal. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-9 and 11-20.
Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2-9 and 11-20 are not discussed
further herein.
Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482

5

Appellant did not challenge the Examiner’s factual findings about
Potamitis on pages 5-7 of the Answer. We will take those findings as
conceded by Appellant.
With regard to the “speaker verification” feature, Appellant argues
that in Rabin, an input device other than voice input is used to assert the
user’s identity. App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that Rabin’s identity
assertion step 501 is performed using an input other than the voice input for
speaker verification. Id. at 7. In addition, Appellant contends that Rabin
“requires the assertion of identity prior to the other operations.” Reply Br. 2
(emphasis added).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive as our interpretation of the
disclosure of Rabin coincides with that of the Examiner. In particular, we
agree with the Examiner that in the passage cited by Appellant, Rabin
teaches that “the user may assert their identity using the methods of entering
a number or using a card reader,” i.e., this is not an exclusive list of methods
for asserting identity. Ans. 16. We also agree with the Examiner that
Rabin’s teaching of “asserting identity through voice” meets the claimed
feature of “in response to the reception of the voice input by the device and
not any other activating input.” Ans. 16 (citing Rabin, col. 1, ll. 47-60).
Further, as alluded to by the Examiner (Ans. 17), Appellant’s argument
(Reply Br. 1-2) that Rabin requires “assertion of identity prior to the other
operations” is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1, which does not preclude determining identity prior to other
operations.
As such, the Examiner finds that Rabin meets the claimed speaker
verification feature, and we concur with the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482

6

With regard to the “command recognition” feature, we agree with the
Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 17-18) in response to Appellant’s
arguments. The Examiner finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, looking at figure 5 of Rabin, would have recognized
that it would have been obvious to reverse the steps of command recognition
(509-510) and speaker voice recognition (511-513). Id. at 18. We agree with
the Examiner because as alluded to by the Examiner (Ans. 18), the claimed
steps (Claim 1(b) and 1(c)) and the reversed order are the only finite number
of solutions both with the same outcome to voice recognition and command
recognition. As such, modifying the flowchart of Figure 5 so that claim
steps 1(b) and 1(c) were reversed would not affect the final outcome in
Rabin, and thus Appellant’s contention does not persuade us that the
Examiner erred.
Regarding claim 10, while Appellant raised additional arguments for
patentability of the cited claim (App. Br. 9), we find that the Examiner has
rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments supported by
sufficient evidence. Ans. 9-10, 18-19. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by
reference. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1-20.

DECISION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin and Potamitis.
Appeal 2010-012151
Application 10/957,482

7

The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-5, 10-12, 14, 15, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin,
Potamitis, and French-St. George.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, and Bi.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, and Potter.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, French-St. George,
and Potter.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rabin, Potamitis, French-St.
George, and Bi.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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).

AFFIRMED

msc