Ex Parte Lazay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2013

10932341 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS LAZAY, JORDAN COHEN,
TRACY MATHER ZLATKOVA, and WILLIAM BARTON
____________________

Appeal 2011-005336
Application 10/932,341
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005336
Application 10/932,341

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-25, and 27. Claims 4, 11, and 26 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to operating wireless communication
devices using a user interface having earcons as user prompts (Spec. 1,
¶[0002]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for operating a communication device
that includes speech recognition capabilities, the method
comprising:
implementing on the device a user interface that employs
a plurality of different user prompts and a plurality of different
earcons, wherein each user prompt of said plurality of different
user prompts has a corresponding language representation and
is for either soliciting a corresponding spoken input from the
user or informing the user about an action or state of the device,
and wherein each earcon of said plurality of different earcons is
mapped to a corresponding different one of said plurality of
user prompts and is a non-verbal representation of the user
prompt to which it is mapped; and
when any selected one of said plurality of user prompts is
issued by the user interface on the device, audibly generating
the earcon that is mapped to the selected user prompt and
audibly generating the corresponding language representation
for the selected prompt.

Appeal 2011-005336
Application 10/932,341

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
French US 6,012,030 Jan. 4, 2000

Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over French.

II. ISSUE
The main issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding that French would have suggested “when any selected one of
said plurality of user prompts is issued” by the user interface, “audibly
generating the earcon that is mapped to the selected user prompt and audibly
generating the corresponding language representation for the selected
prompt” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. French discloses a multimodal use interface including a speech
interface and a non-speech interface (e.g. a graphical or tactile user
interface), which comprises means for dynamically switching between a
background state of the speech interface and a foreground state of the speech
interface, wherein in the foreground state, speech prompts are fully
implemented, while in a background state, speech prompts are replaced by
earcons (Abstract).
2. A user selects one of several modes of interaction with a unit,
Appeal 2011-005336
Application 10/932,341

4
wherein if the user initiates the interaction with a speech input, it is turned
on in the foreground state, wherein if the user uses the keypad and/or soft
keys on the graphical user interface to initiate interaction, the user places the
speech interface in background state (col. 6, ll. 24-43).

IV. ANALYSIS
Although Appellants concede that French teaches that “both earcons
and speech prompts can be employed” (App. Br. 10), Appellants argue that
“[t]here is nothing that French says in his patent that ever implies or suggests
that a dual prompt (i.e., both an earcon and a speech prompt) is generated”
(id.). However, the Examiner concludes that French “suggests wherein each
earcon of said plurality of different earcons is mapped to a corresponding
different one of said plurality of user prompts (for otherwise the user in a
background mode would not understand what the earcon is prompting for)”
(Ans. 4), and explains that “earcons” are “audible sounds, which can be, and
often are, used to alert a possibly distracted, waiting, user that a voice
prompt is about to occur” (Ans. 7). We find no error in the Examiner’s
conclusion.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We note that although Appellants argue that French does not disclose
that “a dual prompt (i.e., both an earcon and a speech prompt) is generated,”
Appellants concede that French teaches that “both earcons and speech
prompts can be employed”(App. Br. 10, emphasis added). Thus, Appellants
appear to be arguing that French does not disclose employing both earcons
and speech prompts at the same time, which is not commensurate in scope
Appeal 2011-005336
Application 10/932,341

5
with the recited language of claim 1. Instead, claim 1 merely requires that
when a selected user prompt is issued, an earcon that is mapped to the
selected user prompt is generated as well as and a corresponding language
representation for the selected prompt (at a different time or at the same
time).
French discloses a user selecting one of several modes of interaction
with a unit, wherein if the user initiates the interaction with a speech input, it
is turned on in the foreground state, wherein if the user uses the keypad
and/or soft keys on the graphical user interface to initiate interaction, the
user places the speech interface in background state (FF 2). That is, French
discloses a user selecting one of a plurality of user prompts, and in response
to the selection, the speech interface is placed in a foreground or background
state.
In French, the speech interface switches between the foreground and
background states, wherein in the foreground state, speech prompts are fully
implemented, while in a background state, speech prompts are replaced by
earcons (FF 1). That is, French discloses speech prompts to be employed in
the foreground state and corresponding earcons to be employed in the
background state to replace the speech prompts. In other words, French
discloses generating both speech prompts and the corresponding earcons to
be employed interchangeably between the background and foreground
states.
Thus, we conclude that French at the least suggests “when any
selected one of said plurality of user prompts is issued” by the user interface,
“audibly generating the earcon that is mapped to the selected user prompt
Appeal 2011-005336
Application 10/932,341

6
and audibly generating the corresponding language representation for the
selected prompt”, as required by claim 1.
Further, even if French requires that both earcons and the speech
prompts are employed at the same time, we are not persuaded and
Appellants have presented no persuasive evidence that modifying the
teaching of employing both speech prompts and earcons, as taught by
French, to provide dual prompts at the same time, was “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, we find
no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that such modification of French
would have conveyed a reasonable expectation of success to a person of
ordinary skill having common sense at the time of the invention.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 over French. Appellants do not provide arguments
for claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-25, and 27 separate from claim 1 (App. Br.9-10),
and thus claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-25, and 27 fall with claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-25, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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

llw