Ex Parte Krishnan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2012

10858578 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 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.
10/858,578 06/02/2004 Arjun Krishnan 042933/262662 4568
10949 7590 02/23/2012
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, LEONARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ARJUN KRISHNAN
________________

Appeal 2009-014029
Application 10/858,578
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JASON V. MORGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014029
Application 10/858,578

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner‘s final
rejection of claims 1 – 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to mobile stations and methods for transmitting
and receiving messages comprising representations of speech including
phonemes or shorthand text (Spec. 1, ll. 5 – 8). Independent claims 1 and 6
are directed to methods of transmitting and receiving a message.
Independent claims 11 and 17 are directed to apparatuses configured to
operate a phoneme engine.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method of transmitting a message comprising:
receiving a message comprising input speech;
converting the input speech into at least one phoneme
representative of the input speech; and
transmitting a representation of the input speech, wherein
the representation comprises at least one of the at least
one phoneme, or shorthand text representative of the
input speech and generated from the at least one
phoneme.
Evidence Examiner Relies Upon
Andric US 6,163,765 Dec. 19, 2000
Kredo US 2003/0002633 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Appeal 2009-014029
Application 10/858,578

3
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andric and Kredo (Ans. 3 – 7).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Andric and
Kredo teaches the recitations of claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites ―converting the input speech into a least one phoneme
representative of the input speech; and transmitting a representation of the
input speech, wherein the representation comprises at least one of the at least
one phoneme, or shorthand text representative of the input speech and
generated from the at least one phoneme.‖ We agree with the Examiner that
a broad but reasonable interpretation of the transmitting step includes (1)
transmitting either phonemes converted from input speech or (2) shorthand
text representative of the input speech and generated from at least one
phoneme (Ans. 7). In our view, only one of the items, either (1) at least one
phoneme or (2) shorthand text, need be transmitted for the transmission
claim language to be met.
With respect to the first alternative—the transmission of phonemes—
the claim does not recite a functional relationship between the phoneme and
the steps of converting input speech into at least one phoneme and
transmitting at least one phoneme. Thus, the phonemes are merely non-
functional descriptive material not entitled to patentable weight. See In re
Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 – 84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2009-014029
Application 10/858,578

4
1983); See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887 – 90 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential). Therefore, a broad but reasonable interpretation of claim 1
includes converting input speech to data and transmitting the data.
As the Examiner correctly finds, Andric discloses comparing
identified phonemes to a dictionary of words and their corresponding
phonemes to derive a textual equivalent of speech (Ans. 7, citing Andric
col. 5, l. 58 – col. 6, l. 1). As the Examiner also correctly finds, this textual
equivalent of speech is then transmitted to a targeted selective call radio
(Ans. 3, citing Andric col. 3, ll. 56 – 60). Therefore, Andric teaches
converting input speech to data (a textual equivalent) and transmitting the
data.
Because Andric discloses all of the claimed receiving, converting, and
transmitting steps, Andric alone anticipates the claimed invention. As
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, see In re May, 574 F.2d 1082,
1089 (CCPA 1978), we affirm the Examiner‘s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Andric and
Kredo.
In addition, we disagree with Appellants‘ contention that ―the
combination [of Andric and Kredo] still does not teach or suggest any . . .
generation of shorthand text from phonemes‖ (Br. 5 – 6) (emphasis omitted).
We find that the combination of Andric and Kredo would have taught or
suggested ―transmitting a representation of the speech, wherein the
representation comprises . . . shorthand text representative of the input
speech and generated from the at least one phoneme‖ as recited in claim 1.
As discussed, Andric teaches converting input speech into at least one
phoneme and transmitting a textual equivalent of the speech generated from
Appeal 2009-014029
Application 10/858,578

5
the phoneme. Kredo teaches an audio browser 28 that receives audio, coverts
the audio to shorthand text (e.g., the commands, or ―input speech,‖ of
―volume ‗normal,‘ personality ‗east coast,‘ emotion ‗sadness,‘ [and]
meaning ‗hi‘‖ are converted to the shorthand text representation ―:-(‖ shown
in Figure 4), and transmits the shorthand text (See Kredo ¶¶ [0035] –
[0036]). Modifying the voice to text messaging device of Andric to transmit
shorthand text as taught by Kredo represents ―the combination of familiar
elements according to known methods [that] does no more than yield
predictable results.‖ See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). Contrary to Appellants‘ contention (at Br. 6 – 7), the rejection on
obviousness grounds is sustained by more than conclusory statements,
―instead, there [is] some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.‖ KSR Int’l, 550
U.S. at 416.
Appellant provides no additional arguments with respect to claims 2 –
22. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find that the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 2 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner‘s decision rejecting claims 1 – 22.
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

ELD