Ex Parte O'Hagan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2004

09057261 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TIMOTHY P O'HAGAN
____________
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, 20 and 22, all the claims pending in the
instant application. Claims 3, 6, 7, 19 and 21 have been
canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to a speech recognition system. See
page 1 of Appellant's specification. Many conventional speech
decoding systems utilize a phonetic encoder to convert the
digital signals representing the utterance into a sequence of
phoneme codes. Each phoneme is the smallest unit of speech that
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
2
can be used to distinguish one sound from another. The sequence
of phoneme codes is decoded into a literal string of words using
a phonetic dictionary and a syntax file. See page 1 of
Appellant's specification. These conventional systems are not
suitable for use in communication systems using mobile
communication units. See page 3 of Appellant's specification.
Appellant's speech recognition system performs speech decoding at
the mobile terminal as compared to a host computer. Appellant's
system utilizes a mobile terminal employing virtual Graphical
User Interface (GUI) pages to facilitate user interface.
Associated with each GUI file is a Hypertext Markup Language
(HTML) file, dictionary file which includes corresponding speech
recognition identifying data (e.g., phoneme files) and a syntax
file. The dictionary files and syntax files are limited in scope
to provide for identification of commands associated primarily
only with the particular GUI file. This greatly reduces the
memory requirements because the dictionary file(s) and syntax
file(s) are limited to words associated with the limited commands
and data which the user of the mobile terminal could validly
input in connection with a particular GUI file. See page 4 of
Appellant's specification.
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on December 17, 2002.
(continued...)
3
Independent claim 1 present in the application is
representative of Appellant's claimed invention and is reproduced
as follows:
1. A speech recognition system, comprising:
a host computer, the host computer operative to communicate
at least one graphical user interface (GUI) display file to a
mobile terminal, the GUI display file having attached thereto at
least one of a dictionary file having phonemes and syntax file
having allowable patterns of words to facilitate speech
recognition, wherein the at least one of a dictionary file and
syntax file are content specific to the GUI display file;
the mobile terminal including a microphone for receiving
speech input; and
wherein the mobile terminal employs the at least one of a
dictionary file and syntax file to facilitate speech recognition
in connection with the at least one GUI display file.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Barclay et al. (Barclay) 5,960,399 Sep. 28, 1999
(filed Dec. 24, 1997)
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, 20 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barclay.
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
1(...continued)
Appellant filed a reply brief on May 15, 2003. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on June 13, 2003 stating that
the reply has been entered into the record.
4
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, 20 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 14687,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
5
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. "In
reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument." In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. "[T]he Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that Barclay fails to teach or suggest
communicating a dictionary file having phonemes and a syntax file
having an allowable pattern of words from a host computer to a
mobile device, as required by Appellant's independent claims 1,
12, 18, 20 and 22. See pages 3-5 of Appellant's brief and reply
brief.
The Examiner agrees that Barclay does not teach a host
computer operative to communicating at least one graphical user
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
6
interface (GUI) display file to a mobile terminal, the GUI
display file having attached thereto at least one of a dictionary
file having phonemes and syntax file having allowable patterns of
words to facilitate speech recognition, wherein the at least one
of the dictionary files or syntax files are content specific to
the GUI display file as recited in Appellant's claims. However,
the Examiner points out that Barclay teaches in column 3, lines
16-17, that it is known to download grammar files to a mobile
unit. The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
reading Barclay would recognize that the Appellant's invention
would be considered prior art having limited vocabularies and
grammars which are downloaded, based on specific Web page topics.
See pages 3-4 of the Examiner's answer.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on
objective evidence of record." Id. "Board conclusory statements
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not 'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999,
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
7
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617. "Mere denials and conclusory statements,
however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board's ultimate conclusion
of obviousness without deference, and the Board's underlying
factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Huston,
308 F.3d 1267, 1276, 64 USPQ2d 1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2002) citing
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). "The Board's findings must extend to all material
facts and must be documented on the record, lest the 'haze of so-
called expertise' acquire insulation from accountability." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Upon our review of Barclay, we fail to find any suggestion
or teaching of having a host computer operative to communicate at
least one graphical user interface (GUI) display file to a mobile
terminal, the GUI display file having attached thereto at least
one of a dictionary file having phonemes and syntax file having
allowable patterns of words to facilitate speech recognition,
wherein the at least one of a dictionary file and syntax file are
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
8
content specific to the GUI display file. We agree that Barclay
teaches in column 3, lines 9-23, that prior art systems have
downloaded grammar from a Web page. However, Barclay teaches in
column 3, lines 7-8, that speech recognizer software is not to be
downloaded. Thus, we find nothing in the Barclay teachings that
suggests communicating phonemes from a host computer to a mobile
terminal. In addition, we find that Barclay discusses the
problem with downloading vocabulary and grammar associated system
at runtime due to the large file sizes. Therefore, we fail to
find anything within these teachings that would have suggested to
one skilled in the art to modify the Barclay system so as to
communicate a graphical user interface (GUI) display file to a
mobile terminal, the GUI display file having attached thereto at
least one of a dictionary file having phonemes and syntax file
having allowable patterns of words to facilitate speech
recognition as recited in Appellant's claims.
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
9
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-18, 20 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
10
AMIN & TUROCY, LLP
1900 EAST 9TH STREET, NATIONAL CITY CENT
24TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44114