Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2011

09650173 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NICHOLAS J. LEE
____________

Appeal 2009-011095
Application 09/650,173
Technology 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-55, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-011095
Application 09/650,173

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a voice interface and method
for improving voice recognition reliability when a user conducts a voice-
based search of a large database (Spec. 1:29-30). Independent claims 1 and
43 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
1. A method for improving voice recognition
accuracy when a user submits a search query by voice to search
a domain of items, the method comprising:
prompting a user to submit a set of characters of a voice
query for searching the domain of items, and receiving the set
of characters from the user, wherein the voice query is an
utterance by the user of a search query, and the set of characters
defines a portion of the search query;
in response to receiving the set of characters from the
user, identifying a subset of items in the domain that correspond
to the set of characters;
generating a dynamic grammar based at least in part on
the subset of items, said grammar specifying valid utterances
for interpreting the voice query;
prompting the user to submit the voice query, and
receiving the voice query from the user; and
interpreting the voice query using the dynamic grammar.

43. A method for facilitating database searches
conducted over a telephone, the method comprising:
prompting a user to depress a sequence of telephone
keypad keys corresponding to a sequence of characters of a
query term of a search query, and identifying a resulting
sequence of keys depressed by the user;
Appeal 2009-011095
Application 09/650,173

3
prompting the user to utter the search query by voice, and
receiving a resulting voice utterance from the user; and
interpreting the voice utterance using a voice recognition
grammar that corresponds to the sequence of keys depressed by
the user, said voice recognition grammar specifying valid
utterances.

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Loghmani (US 6,377,927 B1), Brotman (US
5,917,889), and Weber (US 6,434,524 B1). 1

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner relied on Loghmani for disclosing all the elements of
claim 1 except for the step of prompting the user to submit a set of
characters with respect to the original input, for which the Examiner relied
on Brotman (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner further found that the combination of
Loghmani and Brotman does not teach the step of updating the dynamic
grammar to reflect valid utterances and added Weber to the combination for
this feature (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner reasoned that because prompting the
user reduces the domain field of choice and updating the dynamic grammar
improves accuracy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to modify the speech recognition of Loghmani with the prompting
feature and the updated dynamic grammar of Brotman and Weber (Ans. 5-
6).

1 The detailed statement of the rejection is repeated on pages 4-11 of the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 9, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011095
Application 09/650,173

4
Appellant contends that the character entry disclosed in Brotman
requires the user to both utter and select the corresponding telephone keys
for all of the characters (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3). Appellant concludes that
such requirement does not include prompting the user to submit a set of
characters that define a portion of a search query (id.).
We agree with Appellant’s contentions above. Contrary to the
Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 13-14), the user in Brotman is prompted to utter
the numbers of the telephone key sequence that was previously entered by
depressing the telephone keys (see col. 4, ll. 29-41). Similarly, Brotman
discusses entering an alphanumeric identifier by depressing the telephone
keys which is followed by uttering the entire set (col. 6, ll. 26-32). Both
methods require entering the set of characters using the telephone keys and
uttering all the individual characters of the same set instead of entering
characters defining a portion of the voice query and then uttering the query.
Independent claims 15, 24, 33, and 50 recite similar limitations or
features requiring the user to utter the query or additional query terms that
are different from the entered sequence of characters of a query, which we
found to be absent from the combination proposed by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
15, 24, 33, and 50, and of claims 2-14, 16-23, 25-32, 34-42, and 51-55
dependent therefrom.
Claim 43
Claim 43 recites “prompting the user to utter the search query by
voice” and “interpreting the voice utterance using a voice recognition
grammar.” Appellant contends that the voice recognition grammar in
Brotman only interprets utterances of individual characters, and not an
Appeal 2009-011095
Application 09/650,173

5
utterance of a search query (App. Br. 20). The Examiner relies on column 7,
lines 12-16 of Brotman and asserts that the voice recognition grammar of
Brotman interprets the utterance of the query (Ans. 16).
Based on our review of Brotman discussed above, we find that the
Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
properly finds the user utterance of the alphanumeric characters “AD345M”
in Brotman meets the claimed utterance of the search query. We also find
that “prompting the user to utter the search query by voice” in claim 43 does
not require that the uttered query be necessarily different from the entered
characters of the search query. As discussed above, Brotman prompts the
user to enter the characters of the search query and also to speak the
characters (col. 6, ll. 26-32) which is used by the voice recognition grammar
for identifying valid utterances and determining the matching characters
(col. 7, ll. 12-17).
Therefore, we conclude that the portions of Brotman the Examiner
relied on adequately disclose the disputed features of claim 43.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 43, and of
claims 44-49 dependent therefrom and argued based on the same reasons
presented for their base claim (App. Br. 20).

Appeal 2009-011095
Application 09/650,173

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 43-49 is affirmed, but
reversed with respect to claims 1-42 and 50-55.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj