Ex Parte Levi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13777781 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/777,781 02/26/2013
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
08/23/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Avram Levi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
648.0114 6709
EXAMINER
LELAND III, EDWIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AVRAM LEVI
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777, 781
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20. Claims 9 and 18 are withdrawn from
consideration. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Illustrative Claim
Illustrative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphases,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method of operating a voice command system, comprising:
[A.] receiving audio information spoken by a user during a time
period;
[B.] determining whether the audio information includes a
voice command to request an action;
[C.] determining a first orientation of the user during the time
period,
[i.] wherein the first orientation comprises a movement of
the body of the user performed while the user
speaks the voice command, and
[ii.] wherein the movement comprises one of a plurality
of movements each associated with a
corresponding sub-action of the action; and
[D.] complying with the voice command based on the first
orientation by at least triggering the corresponding
sub-action.
2
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
Rejections
A.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Byers
(US 6,219,645 B 1; pub. Apr. 17, 2001) and Galor et al. (US 2013/0055120
Al; pub. Feb. 28, 2013). 2
We select claim 1 as representative. Appellant does not present
arguments for claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Except for our
ultimate decision, we do not address the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, 10,
11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 12 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Byers, Galor, and Kim et al. (US
2013/0033643 Al; pub. Feb. 7, 2013). Final Act. 23-26.
Appellant does not present arguments for claims 3 and 12. Thus, the
rejection of these claims tum on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our
ultimate decision, we do not address the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 12
further herein.
C.
The Examiner rejected claims 4---6, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Byers, Galor, Kim,
and Parker et al. (US 2013/ 0307771 Al; pub. Nov. 21, 2013).
2 Both the Examiner (Final Act. 3) and the Appellant (App. Br. 7)
mistakenly list claims 5 and 6 as included in this rejection. We treat claims
5 and 6 as included in the third listed ground of rejection as only that
rejection includes an explanation of the basis for rejecting these claims.
Final Act. 10-11.
3
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
We select claim 4 as representative. Appellant does not present
arguments for claims 5, 6, and 13-15. Except for our ultimate decision, we
do not address the§ 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, and 13-15 further herein.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 4 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following points.
A.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Galor fails to disclose movements, performed while speaking a
voice command, associated with corresponding sub-actions of an
action requested by that voice command.
In particular, in its response to arguments, the final Office
action asserts Galor discloses that motions made by the user may
provide a control input for user interaction with interface 20 and
those motions may be combined with interactions in other
modalities, such as voice commands (see final Office action, p.
11; citing Galor, ,r 0028). Galor does not go into further detail
regarding how movement may be used in combination with a
voice command. Rather, Galor merely provides examples where
the user's static orientation effects the action of the voice
4
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
command. One such example is the user pointing at a particular
light that should be turned on when saying "light" (see Galor, ,r,r
0053-54). Galor does not disclose that movement is necessarily
part of the pointing gesture. As such, movement would not be
inherent in the examples since Galor could simply consider a
static pointing position as satisfying the pointing gesture. Galor
fails to disclose that the movement is performed while the user
speaks the voice command, as required by claim 1.
Moreover, Galor fails to disclose how movement would be
related to the voice command. Specifically, Galor fails to
disclose that a user's movement, performed while speaking a
voice command, is one of a plurality of movements that each
correspond to a sub-action of the action requested by the voice
command, as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner present the following response to Appellant's above
argument.
Figure 2, items 30 & 34 and paragraphs [0030] & [0033] of
Galor, which relate to receiving a series of 30 maps of the users
hand and detecting a gesture (including a pointing gesture)
towards a device. Paragraphs [0034-0038] define the process of
identifying a pointing gesture. Paragraph [0036] further states a
condition of identifying such a gesture is "Defining an
interaction region 48 within pyramid shaped region 42 and
identifying a pointing gesture upon the 30 maps indicating user
22 positioning hand 29 within region 48 and moving the hand
towards the display." Paragraph [0038] states a further
condition is "Defining a minimum time period ( e.g., 200
milliseconds), and identifying a pointing gesture upon the 30
maps indicating user 22 pausing hand 29 for the minimum time
period after extending hand 29 towards the display." Therefore,
a pointing gesture is one where there is movement towards an
object followed by a pause. In other words, Galor defines a
"pointing gesture" as one that necessarily involves movement as
an integral part of the gesture, not simply a static orientation as
argued by the Appellant.
5
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
Ans. 11-12.
Since there are multiple light fixtures (see Figure 4, items
64 & 66 and paragraphs [0053-0054]), the pointing gesture to
designate a particular light of the multiple lights as a target is a
subaction of a plurality of possible subactions (i.e. the pointing
towards each different light is a different movement resulting in
a different subaction). These subactions are a part of the "tum on
a light" action triggered by the voice command "Light".
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim limitations, the combination of Byers and Galor renders
the limitations obvious.
Ans. 13.
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues:
[T]he movement itself [in Galor] is not associated with a
corresponding subaction of an action ( as opposed to another
movement being associated with another subaction of the
action), as required by claim 1. Rather, the direction in which
the user is pointing is what is associated with a corresponding
action.
For instance, in the example cited by the Examiner's
Answer, the user says "light" while pointing in proximity to
lighting fixture 66. Aside from the user's movement being used
to confirm that the pointing gesture is not a false positive, the
movement is irrelevant to identification of lighting fixture 66.
Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis added).
We disagree with Appellant's further argument as Galor explicitly
states that the pointing gesture is relevant to identification of the lighting
fixture.
In one example, computer 26 can tum on ( or off) a given one of
the lighting fixtures in response to detecting, in the 3D maps, a
pointing gesture directed toward the given lighting fixture.
Galor ,r 45 (emphasis added).
6
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
B.
Appellant also raises the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 4 provides that a head nod up triggers the volume
to go up and a head nod down triggers the volume to go down .
. . . Parker merely recites that an "interaction set may also be a
gesture library of driver motions that can be used to control the
satellite radio, such as hand, arm or head motions that cause the
satellite radio volume or channel to change" (see Parker, ,r
0061 ). Parker does not disclose any specific motions that
correspond to volume up and down commands. Also, Parker fails
to disclose that such motions would be performed while saying a
voice command rather than independently. In fact, one would not
be motivated to add a voice command to the motions described
by Parker because adding a voice command to Parker would add
unnecessary complication to those driver motions.
App. Br. 8-9.
The Examiner present the following response to Appellant's above
argument.
While the Appellant is correct that no particular head
gesture is tied to either the volume up or volume down command,
since there are a finite number of head motions, it would be
obvious to try them as it is simply choosing from a finite number
of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation
of success. The interaction between gesture and voice command
for changing volume are taught by Kim. Parker simply replaces
the volume direction specifying hand gestures of Kim with
volume direction specifying head gestures.
Ans. 14.
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues:
With respect to claim 4, the Examiner's Answer asserts
that, while Parker discloses no particular head gesture tied to
either volume up or down, it would be obvious to try one of a
7
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
finite number of head motions. While there are not a finite
number of head motions, as an infinite number of different
motions ( even minutely different) may be performed, even if it
were obvious to try the head nod up and head nod down motions,
Parker does not disclose that any voice command need be
spoken while making such a motion.
Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added).
We disagree with Appellant's further arguments. First, contrary to
Appellant's asserted "infinite number of different [head] motions," we
conclude there are only a very limited number of head motions that are
reasonably discemable as being distinct motions (and thus reasonably usable
to convey information). This limited set of head motion consists of: (1) head
up, (2) head down, (3) both head up and down together in sequence; (4) head
right; ( 5) head left; and ( 6) both head right and left together in sequence.
Of this limited set, Appellant uses ( 1) and (2) to convey information. Spec.
,r 48 ("head up or down").
Second, the Examiner does not cite Parker for the argued "voice
command" limitation. Rather, the Examiner cites Byers for "a voice
command system" (Final Act. 3), and the Examiner cites Galor for "a
movement of the body of the user performed while the user speaks the voice
command" (Final Act. 5). Thus, Appellant does not address the actual
reasoning of the Examiner's rejection. Instead, Appellant attacks the Parker
reference singly for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relied on a
combination of references to show. It is well-established that one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). References must be read, not in isolation, but for what they
8
Appeal2018-002374
Application 13/777,781
fairly teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F .2d at
1097.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 10-17, 19,
and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are not patentable.
DECISION
TheExaminer'srejectionsofclaims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and20are
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9