10496548 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

Ex Parte Helbing

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 31, 2010

10496548 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

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. 10/496,548 05/25/2004 Marc Helbing DE 010321 2734 7590 08/31/2010 Philips Electronics North America Corporation Corporated Patent Counsel PO Box 3001 Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 EXAMINER LERNER, MARTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2010 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MARC HELBING ____________________ Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s invention concerns a speech dialogue system in which a user may interrupt a running system output (a feature known as “barge-in”) (Spec. 1). The speech dialogue system comprises one or more front-end computer units with a plurality of access channels for the users, and a plurality of servers with a respective number of speech processing units. Each of the speech processing units comprises a speech activity detector and a speech recognition unit (Spec. 5). The total computing power required by the system is minimized by repeatedly assigning a new speech processing unit on one of the servers to the access channel used by the user, such that the servers are loaded as evenly as possible (Spec. 5). Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method of operating a barge-in dialogue system for parallel use by a plurality of users, which dialogue system comprises one or more front-end computer units having a plurality of access channels for the users and a plurality of servers with a respective number of speech processing units which comprise each a speech activity detector and a speech recognition unit, where repeatedly during a dialogue with a user, at various specific times a new speech processing unit on one of the servers is assigned to the access channel of the front-end computer unit utilized by the user based on server load balancing and the speech activity detector detects a speech signal coming in on the currently assigned access channel and activates the speech recognition unit. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: 2 Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 Hughes US 6,282,268 B1 Aug. 28, 2001 Kannan US 6,728,677 B1 Apr. 27, 2004 Claim 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Hughes. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 31, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 5, 2008) for their respective details. ISSUE Appellant argues that the combination of Kannan and Hughes does not render the claimed invention obvious because both references are silent regarding “repeatedly assigning new speech recognition units during a dialogue” (App. Br. 12). Appellant further asserts that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Kannan in view of Hughes would require more than a mere “duplication of a well known element in speech processing” (Final Rej. 3:22 – 4:4) because of the claimed feature of repeatedly assigning a new processing unit (App. Br. 11-12). We regard both arguments of Appellant, however, as being directed to the same dispositive issue. Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue: Does the combination of Kannan and Hughes teach or fairly suggest a barge-in dialogue system wherein, repeatedly during a dialogue with a user, at various specific times, a new speech processing unit on one of the servers is assigned to the access channel of the front-end computer unit utilized by the user based on server load balancing? 3 Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Kannan 1. Kannan teaches that resource manager 120 is connected to network 199 and is included in system 100 to balance the load carried by each server 110. Thus, if callers 151-155 call into system 100 through client 150, resource manager 120 will distribute callers 151-155 such that the resources (CPU and memory) of servers 110 are equally balanced (col. 3, ll. 26-32). Hughes 2. Hughes teaches that “some applications effectively hold a voice recognition channel for an entire call, whilst others allocate and then deallocate for each user response …. This latter approach in theory leads to more efficient use of recognizer channels” (while creating additional overhead with respect to the allocation of channels) (col. 8, ll. 37-42). PRINCIPLES OF LAW On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there 4 Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419- 420. ANALYSIS We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments supra that the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hughes teaches that a voice recognition channel may be allocated and then deallocated for each user response within the same call (Ans. 5). “[S]ome applications effectively hold a voice recognition channel for an entire call, whilst others allocate and then deallocate for each user response …. This latter approach in theory leads to more efficient use of recognizer channels” (while creating additional overhead with respect to the allocation of channels) (FF 2). We find that Hughes thus teaches, at various specific times (i.e., at the beginning of a particular user response), assigning a new speech processing unit to a user access channel, to achieve more efficient use of recognizer channels, which we find to be analogous to server load balancing, thus meeting the language of representative claim 1. The Examiner further finds, and Appellant does not contest, that Kannan resource manager 120 performs server load balancing (FF 1). Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 9) that it would have been obvious to place a speech activity detector at each of the servers, rather than a single speech activity detector on a digital trunk, as a mere duplication and rearrangement of parts producing no new and 5 Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 unexpected result. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950). Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1-10 over Kannan in view of Hughes. CONCLUSION The combination of Kannan and Hughes suggests a barge-in dialogue system wherein, repeatedly during a dialogue with a user, at various specific times, a new speech processing unit on one of the servers is assigned to the access channel of the front-end computer unit utilized by the user based on server load balancing. ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 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)(v). 6 Appeal 2009-004802 Application 10/496,548 AFFIRMED ELD PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION CORPORATED PATENT COUNSEL PO BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 7