Ex Parte Hajishirzi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2017

13411380 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017)

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.
13/411,380 03/02/2012 Hannaneh Hajishirzi 0260339 9377
63649 7590 02/14/2017
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing @ farj ami. com
farj amidocketing @ yahoo, com
ITarj ami @ farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANNANEH HAJISHIRZI and JILL FAIN LEHMAN
Appeal 2016-004501
Application 13/411,380
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
interactions between computer-controlled animated or robotic characters and
people. See generally Spec. 1—3. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2016-004501
Application 13/411,380
1. A method for use by a system having a processor and a microphone
for addressee identification of speech, said method comprising:
receiving a speech, using said microphone, from one or more of a
plurality of participants;
dividing, by said processor, participation of each of said one or more
of said plurality of participants into a plurality of time intervals;
utilizing, by said processor, one or more function evaluations to
determine which said one or more of said plurality of participants is a
speaking participant during each of said plurality of time intervals; and
utilizing, by said processor, said one or more function evaluations to
classify each said one or more of said plurality of participants determined to
be said speaking participant as whether addressing speech to an automated
character or addressing speech to said one or more of said plurality of
participants during each of said plurality of time intervals.
References and Rejections
Kamimura US 2001/0051535 A1 Dec. 13,2001
Hirata US 2005/0210105 A1 Sept. 22, 2005
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hirata and Kamimura.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
2
Appeal 2016-004501
Application 13/411,380
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
I
Appellants contend Hirata and Kamimura do not collectively teach
“utilizing, by said processor, said one or more function evaluations to
classify each said one or more of said plurality of participants determined to
be said speaking participant as whether addressing speech to an automated
character or addressing speech to said one or more of said plurality of
participants during each of said plurality of time intervals,” as recited in
claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 1—3. In particular,
Appellants assert “Hirata is concerned with whether someone is speaking or
not, and is ignorant of whom is being spoken to or whom the addressee of the
speaker is.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides further
findings showing Hirata and Kamimura collectively teach the disputed claim
limitation. See Ans. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner correctly finds Hirata
teaches classifying a speaking participant “as whether addressing speech to
[himself, or a non-participant] or addressing speech to said one or more of
said plurality of participants during each of said plurality of time intervals.”
See Ans. 2; Hirata 1193 (speaking to himself); 1132 (speaking to a non­
participant via telephone); 1179 (speaking to one or more participants). The
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2).
3
Appeal 2016-004501
Application 13/411,380
Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Kamimura teaches
“addressing speech to an automated character.” See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—3.
Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds Hirata and Kamimura
collectively teach “utilizing, by said processor, said one or more function
evaluations to classify each said one or more of said plurality of participants
determined to be said speaking participant as whether addressing speech to
an automated character or addressing speech to said one or more of said
plurality ofparticipants during each of said plurality of time intervals, ” as
recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
Further, Appellants fail to persuasively respond to the Examiner’s
above findings, as Appellants do not critique the additional Hirata
paragraphs cited in the Answer and the associated findings about those
paragraphs. Therefore, Appellants fails to show error in the Examiner’s
findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”).
II
Appellants contend:
The Office Action assets that the advantages of injecting an
“automated character” of Kamimura into a pool of conference
call participants in Hirata would have been recognized by one
having ordinary skill in the art. However, the purpose of Hirata
is to provide a review of the conference videos at a later time
and there would be no advantages for a reviewer to review the
participation of an automated character at a later time.
4
Appeal 2016-004501
Application 13/411,380
. . . Hirata is directed to enabling a review of conference videos
at a later time. It is unclear as to how there is any desire for
adding any entertainment value to Hirata, and how injecting an
“automated character” of Kamimura into a pool of conference
call participants adds any entertainment value for one who
reviews a conference video at a later time. •
App. Br. 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants’
arguments, the Examiner provides detailed explanation showing why one
skilled in the art would have modified Hirata’s method to include
Kamimura’s teaching of an automated character. See Ans. 4—6. Among
other things, the Examiner determines “the combination of Hirata and
Kamimura would allow conference participants to interact in the conference
remotely utilizing virtual human . . . with reduced communications traffic”
(Ans. 4) and “the combination . . . would allow for group conversations that
are not specifically related to work, but are purely entertainment or social
communications while providing access for remote participants” (Ans. 5).
Appellants do not dispute such explanation. Therefore, Appellants fails to
show error in the Examiner’s determination.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claim 11 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—10 and 12—20, which Appellants do not argue with separate
substantive contentions.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
5
Appeal 2016-004501
Application 13/411,380
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6