Ex Parte Josephson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

09905590 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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.
09/905,590 07/13/2001 Daryl Craig Josephson 00001 4281
7590 09/26/2012
DARYL C JOSEPHSON
54 CHILTON AVE
SAN CARLOS, CA 94070
EXAMINER
HARPER, V PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARYL CRAIG JOSEPHSON
____________

Appeal 2011-009778
Application 09/905,590
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before, THU A. DANG, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009778
Application 09/905,590

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing claims 1-10, 12-36 and 38-44. Appeal Brief 5.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to systems and methods for “user-interface
construction and implementation.” Appeal Brief 7.

Illustrative Claim
1. An interfacing method conducted by one or more machines, the
machines including a host computing device and one or more hosted
machines, comprising:

receiving voice information corresponding to at least one machine
user; and processing the voice information, the processing including:

determining whether the voice information includes command
information; and if so, then:

determining one or more use-based objectives corresponding to the
voice information;

determining one or more specificities corresponding to the command
information; and

determining a conversant command execution corresponding to the
use-based objectives and the specificities.

Appeal 2011-009778
Application 09/905,590

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-36 and 38-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Answer 4-6.

Claims 2, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the
invention. Answer 6-7.

Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Answer 7.

Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 15-36, 38, 39 and 42-44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Watanabe (U.S. Patent Number
6,035,267; issued March 7, 2000). Answer 7-17.

Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Coffman (U.S. Patent
Number 6,377,913; issued April 23, 2002). Answer 17-20.

Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe ad Golhor (U.S. Patent Number 5,970,448;
issued October 19, 1999). Answer 20-21.

Appeal 2011-009778
Application 09/905,590

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the issues on appeal are: “Objection to
amendments to the specification as containing new matter” and “Objection
to the drawings as containing new matter.” Appeal Brief 18.
The Examiner finds, “All of the appellant's arguments are addressed to
petitionable subject matter (i.e., no outstanding rejections in the last office
action have been addressed), thus the examiner maintains all the rejections
and suggests the board affirm all the rejections.” Answer 21.
We find the Examiner’s arguments to be persuasive because
“Objection to amendments to the specification as containing new matter”
and the “Objection to the drawings as containing new matter” are not before
us since we lack jurisdiction over petitionable matters. See, e.g., MPEP §
706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections
and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”); see also
MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be
decided by the Director on petition….”).
Appellant provides no argument with respect to the reviewable
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 35 U.S.C. § 112 first and
second paragraphs, 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus,
Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s rejection of 1-10, 12-36,
and 38-44. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10,
12-36 and 38-44.

Appeal 2011-009778
Application 09/905,590

5
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-10, 12-36 and 38-44 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)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl