Ex Parte Kalinowski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

11119415 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROBERT KALINOWSKI and
GEORGE KAMMERER
________________

Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Kalinowski and George Kammerer (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18, 20–34,
36, and 37. Claims 1–17, 19, and 35 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

2

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 18 and 33, reproduced below (emphasis added), are illustrative
of the claimed subject matter.
18. A method for teaching non-English speakers the English
language comprising:
using a processor communicatively coupled with a
graphical user interface of an electronic device and a user
interface device to enable interactive demonstration on the
graphical user interface of the proper pronunciation of English
sounds, the processor programmed with an algorithm for:
displaying, on the graphical user interface, a menu of a
plurality of English sounds;
accepting user input through the user interface device,
wherein the user input includes at least one of the English
sounds selected from the menu;
providing an animated depiction of a lower facial region
of a human on the graphical user interface, the depiction
including portions of an upper jaw, lower jaw, upper teeth,
lower teeth, upper lip, lower lip, tongue and throat that are not
visible externally in a live human subject;
demonstrating the proper pronunciation of the selected
English sound by using the animated depiction to show the
relative orientation of the upper jaw, lower jaw, upper teeth,
lower teeth, upper lip, lower lip, tongue, and throat while
correctly pronouncing the selected English sound; and
demonstrating the airflow originating in the throat and
exiting through one or both of a human mouth and nose.

33. An interactive system for teaching the proper
pronunciation of sounds in a language comprising:
a processor system for reading and executing a set of
readable instructions;
a computer readable medium with computer code
readable by the processor system, the code executing a
demonstration of the proper pronunciation of a plurality of
sounds in a language, the demonstration comprising an
animated depiction of a lower facial region of a human, the
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

3

depiction including portions of an upper jaw, lower jaw, upper
teeth, lower teeth, upper lip, lower lip, tongue and throat that
are not visible eternally in a live human subject, wherein the
animation depicts the relative orientation of the upper jaw,
lower jaw, upper teeth, lower teeth, upper lip, lower lip, tongue,
and throat while correctly pronouncing the plurality of sounds
in the language; and
a speech instruction text describing the proper
pronunciation of the sounds in the language.

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 18, 20, 22, 24–28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasper (US 4,884,972; iss.
Dec. 5, 1989), Sovijarvi (US 3,410,003; iss. Nov. 12, 1968), and Kingma
(US 660,255; iss. Oct. 23, 1900).
2. Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gasper, Sovijarvi, Kingma, and Freedman (US 5,945,999;
iss. Aug. 31, 1999).
3. Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gasper, Sovijarvi, Kingma, and Inouye (US 5,286,205;
iss. Feb. 15, 1994).

ANALYSIS
Claims 18, 20, 22, 24–28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 — Unpatentable over
Gasper, Sovijarvi, and Kingma
The Examiner finds that Gasper teaches the invention recited in
claims 18, 25–28, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37, except for two claim limitations.
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

4

Ans. 4–6. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings or rationale
concerning the first of the missing claim limitations, namely, a depiction of a
lower facial region for displaying speech organs while speaking, including
portions not visible externally in a live human subject. See id. at 5. With
respect to the second of the missing claim limitations, the Examiner finds
Kingma teaches “demonstrating the airflow originating in the throat and
exiting through one or both of a human mouth and nose,” and the Examiner
reasons that “since air is exiting the mouth and nose while vocal noises are
made, it is inherent that the airflow originated in the throat.” Id. at 4, citing
Kingma, Fig. 3, and referring to “lines indicating airflow” (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner explains that because “airflow is demonstrated as
being produced and exiting in Kingma, and it is inherent that airflow exiting
the mouth and nose originates in the throat, Kingma is interpreted to teach
demonstration of airflow, that is inherently originating in the throat, exiting
through one or both of a human mouth and nose.” Id. at 9. With respect to
Kingma, the Examiner further reasons that “[i]t would have been . . .
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to have added the airflow
indication of Kingma to the invention as modified above . . . to provide a
more complete indication of the mechanics of sound production being
displayed.” Id. at 6.
Appellants argue that “[a] prima facie case of obviousness does not
exist with regard to claim 18 because the cited prior art does not teach or
suggest ‘demonstrating the airflow originating in the throat and exiting
through one or both of a human mouth and nose.’” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis
added). Appellants point out that although “[t]he Examiner contends that
this limitation is inherently found in Kingma because airflow originates in
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

5

the throat[,] . . . the Examiner does not contend that Kingma actually
demonstrates the airflow originating in the throat.” Id. Appellants argue
that “a demonstration cannot be made inherently because . . . it would not be
a ‘demonstration’” and “[w]ithout demonstration of the airflow originating
in the throat, the user would not benefit from the understanding of how to
properly pronounce the English sound being demonstrated.” Id. Moreover,
“[w]ithout such [a] demonstration or depiction, the student will not benefit
from the value of understanding how the throat plays a role in controlling
airflow for the mechanics of proper pronunciation of English sounds.”
Reply Br. 2.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s reasoning that airflow originates in the throat when
air exits the mouth and nose while vocal noises are made. Instead,
Appellants argue that claim 18 requires “that the origination actually be
either depicted or demonstrated.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2. However,
according to claim 18, it is only the “airflow originating in the throat” as
opposed to the origination itself that must be demonstrated. Therefore, on
the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that Kingma’s depiction of airflow exiting from the mouth or nose is a
demonstration of the airflow originating in the throat and exiting through
one or both of a human mouth and nose, as claimed. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, the Examiner finds that Gasper discloses
“providing a section of written text teaching the correct pronunciation of the
selected English sound, wherein the text describes the animation provided on
the graphical user interface corresponding to the selected English sound.”
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

6

Ans. 7 (citing Gasper Fig. 2l–n, item 46). The Examiner explains that
“[s]ince the text of the word contains the letters that determine the
pronunciation of the word, the text of the word to be pronounced is
interpreted to be text that teaches the pronunciation of the word.” Id. at 10.
Appellants argue that “[t]he word ‘CAT’ appearing on [Gasper’s] screen . . .
is the object being pronounced, not the written explanation of how to
perform the pronunciation” and that “[i]t is logically impossible that the
word being pronounced can function as a written text teaching how to
pronounce that same word.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellants contend that the
Specification explains that the “written instructional text allows users to
experience written instructions, in addition to the animation, on how to
correctly pronounce the selected English sound” and that “Gasper lacks
analogous disclosure.” Id. (citing Spec. 8:15–9:1).
In view of the language of claim 22, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that Gasper
discloses a section of written text (i.e., the text “CAT”) that teaches the
correct pronunciation of the selected English sound (i.e., the selected sound
made by the letter “C”), as claimed. Although Appellants argue that the text
cannot teach pronunciation of the word, the claim requires the text to teach
pronunciation of the sound. Notably, Figs. 2l–n depict tile 46 with the word
“CAT,” wherein the letters C, A, and T are highlighted or underlined to aid
in the pronunciation of sounds. In the description corresponding to Figs. 2l–
n, Gasper explains that while “talking head 36 is pronouncing the sound of
the letter ‘C’” “the letter ‘C’ is highlighted” and “letter ‘A’ is underlined to
indicate that its position in the word ‘CAT’ . . . influences the sound of the
‘C’ in the combination of letters that makes up the word ‘CAT.’” See
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

7

Gasper 7:54–68. We further note that contrary to Appellants’ contention,
Gasper is relied upon for disclosing a limitation of claim 22 and is not
required to have a disclosure analogous to a description in the Specification.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Similarly, regarding claims 26 and 33, the Examiner finds that “a
speech instruction text describing proper pronunciation of the sounds in the
language” is disclosed in Gasper. Ans. 5. The Examiner again relies on tile
46 which depicts letters “CAT,” as shown in Figure 2k. The Examiner finds
that Gasper depicts “text related to the pronunciation of the sound that is
displayed as the proper pronunciation of the sound is produced.” Id.
Appellants again argue that “the text being pronounced in [G]asper is not
speech instruction text” and “cannot be a writing describing how to
pronounce itself.” Appeal Br. 15. Similar to claim 22 above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Gasper’s teaching, with
respect to Figure 2k, meets the limitations of claims 26 and 33, in that it
depicts the text “CAT” for pronouncing the sounds for C, A, or T.1
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 33.
Regarding claim 24, the Examiner finds that “[s]ince Gasper teaches
producing an animation based on a series of inputs, repeating the series of
inputs would cause the animations to be repeated, therefore the animated
depiction can be repeated in response to user input.” Ans. 10. Appellants
argue that this finding is “mere speculation” because “[n]owhere does
Gasper suggest that the animated depiction can be repeated in response to

1 With respect to Fig. 2k, Gasper describes that “[t]he word ‘CAT’ is then
sounded out by talking head 36 while the individual letters are highlighted.”
See Gasper 7:41–53.
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

8

user input.” Appeal Br. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument,
because the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Gasper
discloses a user interface device to enable interactive demonstration on the
graphical user interface of the proper pronunciation of English sounds. Ans.
5, citing Gasper, Fig. 2b. Therefore, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that the user may interact with the system more than
once, which would result in repeating the animations. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claims 31 and 36, Appellants repeat the arguments with
respect to claim 18, and also contend that claims 31 and 36 are allowable by
virtue of their dependence on allowable claims 26 or 33. Appeal Br. 15, 16.
For the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 18, and because
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 33, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 36.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 20, 25, 27,
28, 30, 34, and 37, except as allowable by virtue of dependence on claims
18, 26, or 33. Appeal Br. 13, 14, 15, 16. Because we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 18, 26, and 33, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 20, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, and 37.
Claims 21 and 29 — Unpatentable over Gasper, Sovijarvi, Kingma, and
Freedman
The Examiner finds that Freedman discloses “[a] facial display system
for mapping a 2d representation on to [sic] a positionable 3d rendering” and
“3d mapping of 2d representation carried out over multiple frames of
movement and rotation of a 3d object to create a corresponding 3d animation
with movement and rotation in x-y-z axis[.]” Ans. 8 (citing Freedman Figs.
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

9

10 & 11, 1:45–51,2 2:43–60). The Examiner reasons that “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
have added the positionable 3d representation of Freedman to the invention
as modified above in order to provide a more realistic display.” Id.
Appellants argue that the “[the Examiner] does not explain how the
limitations of claims 21 and 29 can be deduced from the cited portions of
Freedman” because the cited passages do “not mention rotation of the
object” or “rotation in response to user input as recited in claim 21.” Appeal
Br. 17. Appellants contend that the cited passages refer only to “Freedman’s
process of combining the two-dimensional image of a head in fig. 6 with the
three-dimensional headless body in fig. 5” or “to placing line segments for
designat[ing] a two-dimensional transition region.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in finding the limitations of claims 21 and 29 disclosed in Freedman.
In particular, Freedman discloses, with respect to Figure 11, that “the body is
rotated to the right and tilted forward.” Freedman 5:45–46. Appellants
acknowledge that the body in Freedman is three dimensional. Thus,
Freedman discloses rotation of an animated depiction in three dimensional
space or about an x-y-z axis. Regarding user input, the Examiner relies upon
Gasper for disclosing a user interface device to enable interactive
demonstration on the graphical user interface. Ans. 5 (citing Gasper, Fig.

2 The Examiner’s reference to column 1 is an apparent error, because the
passage at column 1, lines 45–51 is not pertinent to the Examiner’s findings,
whereas the passage at column 5, lines 45–51 describes Figure 11, which is
relied upon by the Examiner.
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

10

2b).3 Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the Examiner’s rationale
for combining the references. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21 and 29.
Claims 23 and 32 — Unpatentable over Gasper, Sovijarvi, Kingma, and
Inouye
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 23 and 32.
Appeal Br. 17. Because we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18,
22, and 26, from which claims 23 and 32 ultimately depend, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 32.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18, 20, 22, 24–28, 30, 31,
33, 34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasper,
Sovijarvi, and Kingma is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasper, Sovijarvi, Kingma, and Freedman is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gasper, Sovijarvi, Kingma, and Inouye is
afffirmed.

3 Notably, regarding the animated figure depicted in Gasper Figure 2b, “[t]he
system may also be programmed to allow the user to move the head 36 . . .
about the screen.” Gasper 7:21–24.
Appeal 2012-005840
Application 11/119,415

11

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw