Ex Parte Kikinis

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 8, 2011

10192198 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 8, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAN KIKINIS
____________

Appeal 2009-007638
Application 10/192,198
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, 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 for 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 2009-007638
Application 10/192,198

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 6-8, which constitute all the claims pending in this application as
claims 1-5 and 9 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to Data Network Telephony (DNT)
systems and methods for enhancing DNT in narrow bandwidth wireless
links (Spec. 1).
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 6, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
6. A data network telephony (DNT) system, comprising:
a base station connected to a DNT-capable data network and to
a wireless transceiver and operating the transceiver by a wireless
protocol;
a communicator unit, including microphone and speaker
apparatus, adapted to communicate with the base station by the
wireless protocol and to process DNT calls; and
at least one Digital Signal Processor (DSP) for recognizing
human speech in each of the communicator units;
wherein the base station processes DNT calls on the DNT-
capable data network and broadcasts and receives the DNT calls to
and from the communicator unit via the transceiver as DNT data
packets, and wherein the communicator unit creates data packets for
transmission only in response to the DSP recognizing human speech
by monitoring voice inputs for non-descriptive audio, which may be
ignored as non-speech.
The Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Appeal 2009-007638
Application 10/192,198

3
Arnold US 5,905,719 May 18, 1999
Shaffer US 6,167, 374 Dec. 26, 2000
Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arnold and Shaffer.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Arnold and Shaffer because the relied on portion of Shaffer
in column 5, line 58, to column 6, line 5, indicates that all of the speech and
non-speech content is packetized and transmitted (Br. 7). Appellant further
asserts that Shaffer establishes a speech boundary within a 250 millisecond
threshold if words are not recognized, which possibly contain non-
descriptive audio (id.).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 6 as being obvious because
the references fail to teach or suggest processing DNT calls as DNT data
packets “wherein the communicator unit creates data packets for
transmission only in response to the DSP recognizing human speech by
monitoring voice inputs for non-descriptive audio, which may be ignored as
non-speech”? (Emphasis added.)

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant’s contentions as to why the Examiner has
erred. (Br. 6-8).
We specifically agree with Appellant’s position that, in finding
Shaffer’s speech recognition for packetizing only the human speech
segments, the Examiner mischaracterized the reference teachings. We take
Appeal 2009-007638
Application 10/192,198

4
the Examiner’s position (Ans. 7) to mean that distinguishing portions of the
signal having speech from those representing silence is sufficient to meet the
disputed claim feature. Contrary to the Examiner’s conclusion (id.), Shaffer
determines boundaries for signal segments based on comparing the intensity
of the signal with a threshold or by imposing a pre-established duration limit
(see col. 3, l. 45–col. 4, l. 2). Therefore, while the packets are related to
speech, the signal segments used for creating data packets in Shaffer are not
determined “only in response to the DSP recognizing human speech,” as
required by claim 6.

CONCLUSION
The references fail to teach or suggest processing DNT calls as DNT
data packets “wherein the communicator unit creates data packets for
transmission only in response to the DSP recognizing human speech by
monitoring voice inputs for non-descriptive audio, which may be ignored as
non-speech.”
Therefore, Appellant has established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the rejection of claims 6-8 under § 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-8 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-007638
Application 10/192,198

5
babc

CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC
3 HANGAR WAY SUITE D
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076