Ex Parte MARTI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201814317734 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/317,734 06/27/2014 98031 7590 09/04/2018 Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stefan MARTI 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. HRMN/0102 (Pl3195US) 2909 EXAMINER BRINICH, STEPHEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): kcruz@artegislaw.com algdocketing@artegislaw.com rsmith @artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEFAN MARTI, DAVIDE DI CENSO, and AJAY JUNEJA Appeal2017-011804 Application 14/317,734 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14--16, 19, and 20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14--16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Rosenberger (US 8,340,975 Bl; Dec. 25, 2012). Final Act. 3-6. We reverse. Appeal2017-011804 Application 14/317,734 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "wireless control of linked devices." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processing unit, cause the processing unit to translate verbal expressions into commands for a plurality of devices, by performing the steps of: processing a first verbal expression to identify a subset of devices included in the plurality of devices that are each capable of performing a first operation associated with the first verbal expression; disambiguating the subset of devices to identify a first device; translating the first verbal expression to generate a first command that corresponds to the first operation, wherein the first command is included in a first set of commands associated with the first device; and transmitting the first command across a wireless connection to the first device to cause the first device to perform the first operation. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 2 Appeal2017-011804 Application 14/317,734 ANALYSIS Contentions The Examiner finds Rosenberger's speech control devices and automated mechanisms describe all limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 3- 4; see also Ans. 5-9. Appellants present the following principal arguments: Rosenberger does not describe "processing a first verbal expression to identify a subset of devices included in the plurality of devices that are each capable of performing a first operation associated with the first verbal expression; disambiguating the subset of devices to identify a first device" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 10-15; see also Reply Br. 3-6. The recited "subset of devices" as recited in claim 1 cannot be described by Rosenberger' s speech control devices because in Rosenberger the automated mechanisms-not the speech control devices-perform the operation commands. See App. Br. 12-13. The recited "subset of devices" as recited in claim 1 cannot be described by Rosenberger' s automated mechanisms because Rosenberger does not disambiguate the subset of automated mechanisms to identify a first automated mechanism which performs the operation command. See App. Br. 14--15. In particular, Appellants state the following: [T]he automated mechanisms in Rosenberger necessarily correspond to the devices recited in the above limitations of the independent claims. Again, however, Rosenberger does not disclose identifying a subset of automated mechanisms that are each capable of performing a first operation and then disambiguating the subset of automated mechanisms to identify a first automated mechanism, as required by the independent claims. Reply Br. 5---6. 3 Appeal2017-011804 Application 14/317,734 Our Review Rosenberger discloses A self-contained wireless interactive speech recognition control device and system that integrates with automated systems and appliances to provide totally hands-free speech control capabilities for a given space. Preferably, each device comprises a programmable microcontroller having embedded speech recognition and audio output capabilities, a microphone, a speaker and a wireless communication system through which a plurality of devices can communicate with each other and with one or more system controllers or automated mechanisms. The device may be enclosed in a standalone housing or within a standard electrical wall box. Several devices may be installed in close proximity to one another to ensure hands-free coverage throughout the space. When two or more devices are triggered simultaneously by the same speech command, real time coordination ensures that only one device will respond to the command. Rosenberger Abstract. Thus, Rosenberger discloses speech control devices and automated mechanisms. For example, Rosenberger, Figure 10, depicts speech control devices Dl-D4, and various automated mechanisms AM. In operation, a user issues a speech command. "When two or more devices [D 1-D4] are triggered simultaneously by the same speech command, real time coordination ensures that only one device [D 1-D4] will respond to the command." Rosenberger Abstract. In Figure 10, this coordination is depicted as the various weighted signals WS exchanged between the speech control devices Dl-D4. Figures 4---6 depict various techniques for coordination. Importantly, after coordination of the speech control devices Dl-D4, only one automated mechanism AM is sent a command (from one speech control device D 1-D4 ). That is, the coordination of the speech control devices D 1- 4 Appeal2017-011804 Application 14/317,734 D4 avoids the problem of an automated device AM receiving duplicate commands from multiple speech control devices Dl-D4. See Rosenberger Abstract. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding Rosenberger describes "processing a first verbal expression to identify a subset of devices included in the plurality of devices that are each capable of performing a first operation associated with the first verbal expression; disambiguating the subset of devices to identify a first device" as recited in claim 1. In short, to the extent control devices D 1-D4 are mapped to the recited "subset of devices" and a first device is identified as one of devices Dl-D4 via the coordination techniques in Rosenberger, then Rosenberger does not "transmit[] the first command across a wireless connection to the first device to cause the first device to perform the first operation" as required in claim 1 because in Rosenberger devices D 1-D4 do not perform the operation. Further, to the extent the automated devices AM are mapped to the recited "subset of devices" then we do not readily see identification in Rosenberger of "a subset of devices included in the plurality of devices that are each capable of performing a first operation associated with the first verbal expression" as recited in claim 1 because, in Rosenberger, the original command is already for one automated device, and Rosenberger does not disambiguate among the automated devices AM; rather, Rosenberger at best disambiguates among the speech control devices Dl-D4. Finally, to the extent control devices Dl-D4 and automated devices AM, in combination, are mapped to the "subset of devices," we find that 5 Appeal2017-011804 Application 14/317,734 such a mapping is vague and improper. For example, we do not readily see a one-to-one pairing in Rosenberger of speech control devices D 1-D4 and automated devices AM. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 19 each recite the same argued limitations. We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 10 and 19. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 5-7, 11, 12, 14--16, and 20, which variously depend from claims 1, 10, and 19. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14--16, 19, and 20 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation