Ex Parte HeidaschDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612953649 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/953,649 11/24/2010 Robert Heidasch 2010P00349US 3865 52025 7590 12/21/2016 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER TRUONG, DENNIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): martin @ BMTPATENT.COM szpara@bmtpatent.com colabella@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT HEIDASCH Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Independent claims 1,10, and 16 contain similar features, and respectively recite a method, computer-readable medium for performing a method, and system for performing audio information searches using text- based semantic analysis on audio information that has been operated on by a speech recognition engine which locates terms of interest (Title; Spec. 1:4— Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 6; claims 1,10, and 16; Abs.). Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis on the disputed portion of the claim, reads as follows 1. A method implemented by a computing system in response to execution of program code by a processor of the computing system, the method comprising: receiving, from a remote user, a search query including at least one search term; receiving audio information at a speech recognition engine; automatically creating by the speech recognition engine: (i) a text transcript representing the audio information, the text transcript including bold lettering of terms determined to be of interest to the user based on the at least one search term, and (ii) meta-data associated with the audio information, the meta-data including a term index; automatically performing a textual-based semantic analysis for the audio information, the textual-based semantic analysis being based at least in part on a terminology repository and at least one of the text transcript or the meta-data, wherein the terminology repository includes information imported from an external terminology registry; automatically storing time offset information associated with the audio information, the time offset information representing a sentence offset beginning point where a sentence containing the at least one search term begins; and storing a result of the semantic analysis in a semantic index in relation to a record of the audio information. Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6—8, 10—13, and 16—20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCusker et al. (US 2008/0033986 Al; published Feb. 7, 2008), English et al. (US 2 Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 2011/0060751 Al; published Mar. 10, 2011), and Agrawal (US 2007/0124298 Al; published May 31, 2007).1 Final Act. 2—19. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 5,9, 14, and 15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCusker, English, Agrawal, and Yurick et al. (US 2008/0270344 Al; published Oct. 30, 2008).2 Final Act. 19-22. Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 6—11; Reply Br. 2-4), the following principal issue is presented: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—20 as being obvious over the base combination of McCusker, English, and Agrawal because the base combination fails to teach or suggest “automatically storing time offset information associated with the audio information, the time offset information representing a sentence offset beginning point where a sentence 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-4, 6—8, 11—13, and 17—20, and Appellant relies on the arguments presented for independent claim 1 as to the patentability of dependent claims 2-4, 6—8, 11—13, and 17—20 (see App. Br. 9). Independent claims 1,10, and 16 recite similar subject matter, namely. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group of claims rejected over McCusker, English, and Agrawal (claims 1—4, 6—8, 11— 13, and 17—20). Accordingly, our analysis herein of this rejection will only address representative claim 1. 2 Appellant argues dependent claims 5, 9, 14, and 15 for the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 10 from which claims ultimately depend, and also argues that Yurick fails to cure the deficiencies of the base combination as to claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, our conclusion as to the obviousness of claims 5, 9, 14, and 15 stands/falls with our conclusion as to claims 1 and 10, which stands/falls with the result for representative claim 1. We will not further address this rejection in our analysis herein. 3 Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 containing the at least one search term begins,” as recited in representative independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in remaining claims 2—20? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2—22) in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6—11) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2— 3). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2—3). We concur with the conclusion of obviousness reached by the Examiner. The Examiner has provided a factual basis and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness with regard to representative independent claim 1 (see Final Act. 2—5; Ans. 2—3). SeeKSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2—3), and Appellant has not refuted in the Reply Brief with evidence or argument, that McCusker discloses storing index data, encoded media, and recording records in database 34, storage 32, and/or index storage 24 (Ans. 2) and automatically storing starting points and time offsets (Ans. 3 citing Agrawal 132). The Examiner relies on Agrawal for the missing piece {id.), which is a disclosure of automatically storing time offset information as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3) upon paragraph 32 of Agrawal as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation of automatically 4 Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 storing time offset information. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that paragraph 32 meets the recited limitation, because paragraph 32 also discloses supplemental icons to allow users to select time offsets representing contextual offsets and sentence beginning points where a contextual sentence containing a search term begins. We agree with the Examiner that, [A]s disclosed in paragraph [0032], instead of indicating the time offset of where “Katrina” was found, it can also indicate the beginning of a sentence, paragraph or segment in which the term appears. Therefore the combination of Agrawal and McCusker teaches automatically storing time offset information that represents the beginning point of a sentence containing the search term in the audio information as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 16 (Ans. 3). Specifically, we find that paragraph describes supplemental icons that are stored for later use by a user to select a desired offset (i.e., the sentence offset is automatically stored): Alternatively, the host may return information describing potential beginnings so that the user may select when the content will begin. For example, a client may render a supplemental icon configured to let the user select whether (1) a preceding 10 seconds of contextual information, (2) the beginning of a sentence of contextual information, (3) the beginning of a paragraph of contextual information, or (4) the beginning of a segment of contextual information should be used. Agrawal |32, lines 12—20 (emphases added). Therefore, Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 2—3) that the combination of references fails to disclose or suggest automatically storing time offset information, and Agrawal’s multi-occurrence icons 310 and 320 disclosed in Agrawal’s paragraphs 26 and 32 do not meet this 5 Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 limitation (and simply render content in context at a user specified time offset) are not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not sufficiently shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2—4, 6—8, 10-13, and 16—20 grouped therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of McCusker, English, and Agrawal. For similar reasons, Appellant has not sufficiently shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting remaining dependent claims 5, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of McCusker, English, Agrawal, and Yurick.3 Therefore, we sustain both of the obviousness rejections before us. CONCLUSIONS (1) In rejecting claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-13, and 16—20, the Examiner did not err in determining that the combination of McCusker, English, and Agrawal teaches or suggests “automatically storing time offset information associated with the audio information, the time offset information representing a sentence offset beginning point where a sentence containing the at least one search term begins,” as recited in representative independent claim 1. (2) Appellant has not sufficiently shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 9, 14, and 15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCusker, English, Agrawal, and Yurick. 3 See supra Decision 3, fn. 2. 6 Appeal 2015-002606 Application 12/953,649 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation