Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11646911 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

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.
11/646,911 12/28/2006 Hyun-Soo Kim 678-2610 (P13862) 2387
66547 7590 02/28/2014
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
KOVACEK, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2014 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 HYUN-SOO KIM
____________

Appeal 2012-009980
Application 11/646,911
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-009980
Application 11/646,911

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “a method and system for
segmenting phonemes from voice signals for a sound recognition system”
(Spec. ¶ [0002]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for segmenting phonemes from voice signals,
comprising:

extracting peak information from input voice signals, the
peak information including first peak information
corresponding to a plurality of first order peaks of the input
voice signals and second peak information corresponding to a
plurality of second order peaks for the plurality of first order
peaks;

determining a length of a frame for calculating peak
statistics;

forming a histogram showing a density distribution of the
second order peaks with respect to the determined frame length;

calculating the peak statistics using the histogram;

determining two neighboring maxima of the histogram
using the calculated peak statistics per each frame; and

determining a valley between the two neighboring
maxima as a boundary between phonemes to perform a
phoneme segmentation.

Appeal 2012-009980
Application 11/646,911

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Komissarchik (US
5,799,276, Aug. 25, 1998) and Fanty (US 6,535,851 B1, Mar. 18, 2003).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect in finding Komissarchik
and Fanty discloses extracting peak information from voice signals including
peak information corresponding to first and second order peaks, as claimed
(App. Br. 7). Particularly, Appellant asserts neither Komissarchik nor Fanty
refers “to second order peaks according to a definition consistent with the
Specification” (id.). Additionally, Appellant contends Komissarchik does
not disclose forming a histogram showing a density distribution of second
order peaks as claimed (App. Br. 9). Appellant again states Komissarchik
cannot show a density distribution of second order peaks because a
histogram is “a representation of density values of the values of interest” and
thus, Komissarchik’s histogram uses all peaks (App. Br. 12) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Appellant’s Specification does not
include an explicit definition of “second peaks” (Ans. 12, 14). Appellant’s
Specification generally describes a figure (Fig. 3) illustrating the concept of
Appeal 2012-009980
Application 11/646,911

4
a high order peak, rather than a limiting definition.1 We also decline
Appellants’ invitation to read limitations from the Specification into the
claims.2 Additionally, we agree with the Examiner, Appellant is arguing
limitations not recited in the claims (Ans. 15).
With respect to the step of forming a histogram showing a density
distribution, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own
(Ans. 15-17). Particularly, we agree the Appellant is arguing the references
separately and not as a combination (Ans. 16) and even if they were argued
together, the combination would teach or suggest Appellant’s claimed
invention, as a Komissarchik discloses a histogram showing a density
distribution of all peaks and thus, necessarily includes second order peaks
(Ans. 17).
Thus, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 10 and
dependent claims 4, 7, 13, and 14.

1 See Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description” (citations omitted)). Any special meaning assigned to a term
“must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d
1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
2 “During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable
interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations
are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321
(Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Appeal 2012-009980
Application 11/646,911

5
With respect to separately argued claim 8 (and claim 17, which
includes substantially the same limitations), Appellant asserts Fanty does not
teach or suggest distinguishing between various peak orders as alleged by
the Examiner; rather Fanty prioritizes using rankings of techniques for
determining candidate boundaries (App. Br. 14). We agree with Appellant.
Fanty does not teach or suggest final peak order for extracting second peak
information as claimed; rather Fanty discloses ranking prioritization
boundaries for generating boundaries (App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 8). Thus,
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 17, and claims 9 and 18, dependent
therefrom, is not sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C § 103 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C § 103 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

msc