Ex Parte Mowatt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2014

10990345 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID MOWATT and ROBERT L. CHAMBERS
____________________

Appeal 2012-0016651
Application 10/990,345
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Corp. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-001665
Application 10/990,345

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, 16, 18, 20, 27, 29, 33, and 35. Claims 9, 14,
15, 17, 19, 21-26, 28, 30-32, and 34 have been canceled. App. Br. 3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for allowing a user to
clarify a voice command issued to a plurality of application modules. In
particular, upon each of the application modules generating a plurality of
interpretations in response to the user’s voice command, the user is
prompted to select an interpretation from a display. Fig. 5; Spec. 2:12-21.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A computer-implemented method of facilitating
centralized interaction with a user, the method comprising:
providing a recognized voice command to a plurality of
application modules for execution;
receiving a plurality of possible interpretations of the
recognized voice command when at least one of the application
modules is unable to execute the recognized voice command
because the execution of the recognized voice command is
ambiguous in that the recognized voice command could execute
more than one action in one of the plurality of application
modules, the plurality of possible interpretations are generated
by and received from each of the plurality of application
modules that are affected;
Appeal 2012-001665
Application 10/990,345

3
visually rendering the plurality of possible interpretations
of the voice command on a centralized display; and
receiving an indication of selection of an interpretation
from the user.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hon US 5,852,801 Dec. 22, 1998
Ortega US 6,085,159 Jul. 4, 2000
Ross US 2002/0133354 A1 Sep. 19, 2002
Coffman US 2003/0014260 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Buchner EP 0 911 808 A1 Apr. 28, 1999

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 10-13, 16, 18, 20, 27, 29, 33, and 35
as follows:
Claims 1-4, 10, 12, 13, 20, 27, 29, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ross, Ortega,
and Coffman.2
Claims 5-8, 11, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ross, Ortega, Coffman,
Buchner, and Hon.

2 The Examiner inadvertently included canceled claim 34 in this statement of
the rejection. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2012-001665
Application 10/990,345

4
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8-11, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-4.3

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding
the combination of Ross, Ortega, and Coffman teaches or suggests upon
detecting each of a plurality of application modules is unable to execute an
ambiguous voice command received from a user, generating on a
centralized display a plurality of possible interpretations from which the
user selects one interpretation for execution, as recited in claim 1?
Appellants argue the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 8-17;
Reply Br. 1-4. In particular, Appellants argue although Ross and Coffman
both disclose a conversation/dialog manager for determining which one of a
plurality of applications is best suited to execute a speech input received
from a user, the proffered combination of references does not teach the user
speech being forwarded to a plurality of application modules for execution.
(App. Br. 8-17; Reply Br. 1-3).

3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February14, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed
July 15, 2011), and the Answer (mailed May 16, 2011) for the respective
details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-001665
Application 10/990,345

5
In response, the Examiner finds Coffman’s disclosure of determining
a method responsive to a command based on all active and referenced
applications teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 17-18.
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. We agree with Appellants the cited portions of
Coffman are directed to a component control serving as a “switch yard” for
maintaining a reference to all currently active applications by looking at the
multi-modal history including a list of events for each of said applications to
determine which one of the applications best resolves a context ambiguity
associated with an input speech received from a user. App. Br. 8; Coffman
[0035]; Reply Br. 1-2. We thus agree with Appellants’ argument that
because both Ross and Coffman teach the claimed ambiguity resolution
within the context of a single application module as opposed to a plurality of
modules, the proffered combination does not teach the disputed limitations.4
Accordingly, because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other
arguments. Therefore, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s

4 We leave to the Examiner to determine whether the proffered combination
would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations under an alternative
theory of obviousness. In particular, in light of the US Supreme Court
holding “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007). That is, in the event of further prosecution the
Examiner may consider whether under the cited precedent it would have
been obvious to extend to a plurality of application modules Ross-Coffman’s
undisputed disclosure of a single application module determining the context
ambiguity of an input speech.
Appeal 2012-001665
Application 10/990,345

6
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ross,
Ortega, and Coffman.
Because claims 2-8, 10-13, 16, 18, 20, 27, 29, 33, and 35 recite
commensurate limitations as those in claim 1 discussed above, Appellants
have similarly shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8, 10-13, 16, 18, 20,
27, 29, 33, and 35 as set forth above.

REVERSED

tj