Ex Parte Hidaka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

11397803 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KOTA HIDAKA, SHINYA NAKAJIMA, OSAMU MIZUNO,
HIDETAKA KUWANO, and HARUHIKO KOJIMA
_____________

Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 17, 19-27, 30, 31, and 34-37.1 An oral
hearing was conducted on July 9, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium,
and apparatus for processing speech in order to determine whether the
speech was emphasized or not. Spec. 3-6. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A speech processing method performed on a processor for
deciding whether a portion of input speech is emphasized or not
based on a set of speech parameters for each frame, comprising
the steps of:
(a) obtaining a code by quantizing a set of speech parameters
for each of a plurality of frames in a portion of the input speech
by using a codebook which stores, for each code, a speech
parameter vector, a normal-state appearance probability and an
emphasized-state appearance probability, each of said speech
parameter vectors being composed of a set of speech
parameters including at least two of a fundamental frequency,
power and temporal variation of dynamic-measure and/or an
inter-frame difference in at least one of those parameters, and
obtaining from said codebook an emphasized-state appearance
probability and a normal-state appearance probability
corresponding to the code obtained for each frame in the
portion;
(b) calculating an emphasized-state likelihood with the
processor of the portion by multiplying the emphasized-state
appearance probabilities of the plurality of frames in the portion
and calculating a normal-state likelihood of the portion by

1 Claims 5, 14-16, 18, 28, 29, 32, and 33 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803

3
multiplying the normal-state appearance probabilities of the
plurality of frames in the portion, respectively; and
(c) deciding whether the portion of the input speech is
emphasized or not based on said calculated emphasized-state
likelihood and said normal-state likelihood, and outputting a
decision result of said deciding, the decision result indicating
whether the portion of the input speech is emphasized or not.

REFERENCES
Brown US 5,293,584 Mar. 8, 1994

Robinson US 5,999,899 Dec. 7, 1999

Thelen US 6,487,534 B1 Nov. 26, 2002

Chen, F.R.; Withgott, M., "The use of emphasis to automatically
summarize a spoken discourse," Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing,
1992. ICASSP-92., 1992 IEEE International Conference on , vol.1, no.,
pp.229,232 vol.1, 23-26 Mar 1992, doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225930.
(Hereinafter referred to as Chen).

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 17, 19-27, 30, 31, and 34-37 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Chen, Robinson, and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Ans. 3-37.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Robinson, Applicants’ Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA), and Thelen. Ans. 38-41.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Robinson, Applicants’ Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA), Thelen, and Brown. Ans. 41-42.
Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803

4
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chen,
Robinson, and AAPA teaches or suggests “a codebook which stores, for
each code, a speech parameter vector, a normal-state appearance probability
and an emphasized-state appearance probability, each of said speech
parameter vectors being composed of a set of speech parameters,” as
required by claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1-4, 6-13, 17, 19-27, 30,
31, and 34-37 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims with
particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that none of the references teach the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 12. First, Appellants contend that Chen only teaches
codebooks with a single speech parameter and not a vector with multiple
speech parameters, as required by the claim. App. Br. 12. However, we
note that the Examiner finds that Chen teaches multiple codebooks each with
a corresponding parameter and finds that Robinson teaches a codebook
wherein the speech parameter vector has a set of speech parameters. Ans.
42-44. Thus, the Examiner finds (Ans. 42-44), and we agree, that Robinson,
not Chen, teaches a codebook wherein the vector contains multiple speech
parameters.
Second, Appellants contend that Robinson does not teach vectors that
are composed of a set of different kinds of speech parameters. App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 5-6. Instead, Appellants contend that what the Examiner
considers multiple speech parameters are merely the same parameter. App.
Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803

5
Br. 14. We disagree. The Examiner finds that Robinson’s parameters
include frequency and amplitude which are, by definition, different
parameters that represent different information. Ans. 47. Additionally, the
Examiner finds that Chen teaches F0 (fundamental frequency), energy, and
delta-F0 (variation in pitch), as the different measured parameters. We agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 47) and do not find Appellants’ argument to be
persuasive.
Third, Appellants argue that Robinson’s vectors do not contain
appearance probabilities, as required by the claim. App. Br. 14. While we
agree with Appellants’ assertion (App. Br. 14), the Examiner finds that Chen
is used to teach appearance probabilities. Ans. 52. Thus, the Examiner finds
that it is the combination of references that teaches normal-state and
emphasized-state probabilities. Ans. 52. We agree with the Examiner.
Lastly, Appellants argue that even if the combination of the references
teaches all of the limitations, there is no rational reason to combine
Robinson’s vector codebook with Chen and AAPA. App. Br. 15; Reply Br.
4. Specifically, Appellants argue that each of the references serve different
purposes. Reply Br. 3-4. We disagree. Chen’s purpose is to summarize
speech using codebooks. See Chen, pp. I-230-231. Robinson’s purpose is to
encode and decode audio signals using codebooks, which are “most often
used to model human speech signals.” See Robinson, col. 1, ll. 55-61 and
col. 9, ll. 27-38. Thus, it would make sense to use the references together
with the combination yielding no more than predictable results. KSR Int'l v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007). The Examiner also identifies
the relevant portions of each of the references relied on throughout the
Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 3-7. To the extent that the Examiner relies on
Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803

6
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
the references, this practice is consistent with current case law. For example,
in KSR at 418, the Supreme Court explains:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis
should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must
be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). As our
precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.
In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly
articulated and are based on detailed factual findings that are supported by
the references of record. See Ans. 3-7. Additionally, the Examiner finds that
the combination would “provide greater efficiency.” Ans. 6 (citing
Robinson, col. 11, ll. 45-58). We find the Examiner’s motivation to be
reasonable. Thus, we agree with the Examiner.
For all the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-4, 6-13, 17, 19-27, 30, 31, and 34-37.

Appeal 2011-004587
Application 11/397,803

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Chen,
Robinson, and AAPA teaches or suggests “a codebook which stores, for
each code, a speech parameter vector, a normal-state appearance probability
and an emphasized-state appearance probability, each of said speech
parameter vectors being composed of a set of speech parameters,” as
required by claim 1.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-13, 17, 19-27, 30, 31,
and 34-37 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