Ex Parte Cross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2013

11154899 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte CHARLES W. CROSS JR.,
MICHAEL C. HOLLINGER,
IGOR R. JABLOKOV, BENJAMIN D. LEWIS,
HILARY A. PIKE, DANIEL M. SMITH,
DAVID W. WINTERMUTE,
and MICHAEL A. ZAITZEFF
_____________

Appeal 2010-009330
Application 11/154,899
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009330
Application 11/154,899

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 19 through 33.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of presenting available menu
choices in a multimodal browser. See pages 2, 3 and Figure 4 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 19 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
19. A method for displaying available menu choices in a
multimodal browser, the method comprising:
presenting to a user a plurality of GUI menu fields;
receiving as user speech a selection of a menu choice
from the user;
selecting one of the plurality of GUI menu fields in
dependence upon the user speech and field selection rules;
displaying, in a GUI display box for the plurality of GUI
menu fields, the plurality of menu choices for the selected GUI
menu field;
highlighting the selected GUI menu field;
displaying to the user an icon representing a selection
attribute of at least one of the plurality of GUI menu fields, the
selection attribute comprising additional information
concerning the status of the GUI menu field or selection
requirements of the GUI menu field.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 19 through 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gergic (U.S. 2003/0046316 A1),
Appeal 2010-009330
Application 11/154,899

3

Kleindienst (US 2004/0019487 A1) and Graham (U.S. 2002/0098891 A1).
Answer 3-6.1

ISSUES
Appellants argue on page 4 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is in error. These arguments present us with
two issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Gergic, Kleindienst and Graham teaches presenting a plurality of
GUI menu fields, selecting one GUI field in response to user
speech and displaying in a GUI display box, the plurality of menu
choices for the selected menu field?
b) With respect to claim 22, Appellants’ arguments present
us with the additional issues: did the Examiner err in finding that
the combination of the references teaches determining if the
selection matches a menu choice, identifying whether or not the
selection matches the choice?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Gergic, Kleindienst and Graham

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated
December 21, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer dated February 23, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009330
Application 11/154,899

4

teaches presenting a plurality of GUI menu fields, selecting one GUI field in
response to user speech and displaying in a GUI display box, the plurality of
menu choices for the selected menu field. Appellants argue that Gergic does
not teach presenting a plurality of GUI menu fields and selecting one.
Rather, Appellants assert that Gergic teaches a single GUI menu field and
the speech input is used to select the choices in the menu field and not the
menu field. Brief 7. The Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments,
identifies that Gergic’s figure 3 includes more than one menu field and that
the disclosure of Gergic also discusses additional menu fields that are not
depicted in figure 3. Answer 6. Further, the Examiner points out that
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as they are only directed to
Gergic’s Figure 3 and Appellants have not addressed Figure 6A which is
also cited as evidence that Gergic also teaches the disputed limitations and
as such, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Answer 6-7. We concur
with the Examiner. The Examiner has cited to ample evidence that the
Figure 3 embodiment teaches the disputed limitation. Further, Appellants
have not identified an error in the Examiners’ findings that the embodiment
in Gergic’s Figure 6A also teaches the disputed limitations. Accordingly,
we are persuaded that the combination of the references teaches presenting a
plurality of GUI menu fields, selecting one GUI field in response to user
speech and displaying in a GUI display box, the plurality of menu choices
for the selected menu field.
Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 22, similarly assert that
Gergic does not teach presenting a plurality of GUI menu fields and
selecting one and thus does not teach whether the selection matches the
menu choice. The Examiner states and we concur, that Appellants’
Appeal 2010-009330
Application 11/154,899

5

arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed with respect to
the first issue.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19 through 33 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