Ex Parte KIST et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2004

09348425 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS A. KIST, BURN L. LEWIS, and BRUCE D. LUCAS
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 22 through 31, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to a speech recognition system
which identifies a voice command component specified by a command
grammar and a dictation component not specified by the command
grammar and executes the voice command component using the
dictation component as an execution parameter of the voice
command. Claim 22 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and
it reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
2
22. In a speech recognition system, a method of processing a
voice command comprising:
identifying a voice command having a voice command component
and a dictation component within a contiguous utterance, wherein
said voice command component is specified by a command grammar
and said dictation component is free-form text which is not
specified by said command grammar, and wherein said dictation
component is embedded within said voice command; and
executing said identified voice command component using at
least a part of said dictation component as an execution
parameter of said voice command.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Gould et al. (Gould) 5,799,279 Aug. 25, 1998
Claims 22 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Gould.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed October 8, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No. 17,
filed July 22, 2003) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19, filed
December 8, 2003) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
3
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 22 through 31.
Independent claims 22 and 27 each recite:
identifying a voice command having a voice command
component and a dictation component within a contiguous
utterance, wherein said voice command component is
specified by a command grammar and said dictation
component is free-form text which is not specified by
said command grammar, and wherein said dictation
component is embedded within said voice command.
Thus, all of the claims require that the identified voice command
has a dictation component, which is text that does not follow the
command grammar.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that Gould does not teach
identifying voice commands that include a dictation component.
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 9-10) that "commands in Gould
are fully specified by templates. . . . The templates define the
words that may be said within command sentences and the order in
which the words are to be spoken." Thus, appellants assert
(Brief, page 10) that Gould's templates do not permit free-form
speech to be included within the command structure. We agree.
Gould discloses (column 2, lines 6-11) that his invention
recognizes commands within dictated text without the user having
to switch between command and dictation modes. Gould
accomplishes such recognition by comparing speech frames to
Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
4
speech models to determine whether the results represent a
command or text. Further, the commands follow templates which
define the words which may be said within the commands and the
order in which the words are spoken (see column 4, lines 47-55).
In the example given in column 5, lines 25-29, Gould explains
that a command to move up two lines must be spoken as "Move Up 2
Lines," with no variation, because any variation would not follow
the template for that command. Similarly, Gould discloses
(column 8, lines 50-55) that "[u]ser's speech that does not
conform to a command template does not provide a valid recognized
command. A user's speech does not conform to a template if the
user does not speak permitted words in the predetermined order."
Thus, Gould's templates equate to the claimed command grammar by
which the command component is specified. Also, Gould's commands
include no dictation component that does not follow the
templates, for if they did, Gould teaches that they would not be
recognized commands. Accordingly, as Gould fails to disclose the
dictation component of the claimed commands, we cannot sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 22 and 27 nor of their
dependents, claims 23 through 26 and 28 through 31.
Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
5
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22 through 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG/vsh
Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
6
AKERMAN SENTERFITT
P. O. BOX 3188
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33402-3188