Ex parte Rabin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2000

08175326 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2000)

Application for patent filed December 29, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL D. RABIN
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,3261
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-
10, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a voice command control and verification
system which uses the spoken command as both the command recognition and as the
identity verification. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 7, which is reproduced below.
7. A method of recognizing voice commands of authorized users of a
system, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a claim of identity from a person;
receiving an utterance of a system command from said person;
performing a speech recognition process on said utterance;
performing a speaker verification process on said utterance;
if said utterance is recognized as a command to said system and if
said claimed identity is verified based on said utterance, providing a signal
to said system indicating that a command has been presented by an
authorized user for execution.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Dowden et al. (Dowden) 5,181,237 Jan. 19, 1993
Naik et al. (Naik ‘720) 5,216,720 Jun. 01, 1993
Green 5,274,695 Dec. 28, 1993
Picone et al. (Picone) 5,293,452 Mar. 08, 1994
(Filed Jul. 01, 1991)
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
3
Naik, J.M., “SPEAKER VERIFICATION: A TUTORIAL,” IEEE COMMUNICATIONS
MAGAZINE, January 1990, pp 42-48.(Naik)
Claims 1 and 3-5 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Naik ‘720 in view of Dowden and Picone. Claim 6 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dowden in view of Green. Claims 1
and 3-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naik ‘720 in
view of Naik, Dowden and Picone.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Aug. 29, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed Dec. 18, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Jul. 11, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed Nov. 4, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
4
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that the examiner has not provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to
use the command as the signal for both command recognition and speaker identity
verification as set forth in the language of claim 7.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case of
obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to
a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, we find that
appellant has overcome the prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient
evidence by the examiner of obviousness. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 7, nor its similar independent claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. Nor will we sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 5 and 8-10.
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
5
Appellant argues the examiner has not provided a teaching or convincing line of
reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to use the input command as both the command recognition and the identity
verification. (See brief at page 4 et seq.) We agree with appellant. Appellant argues that
Naik ‘720 is concerned with access security and is not concerned with command
recognition while Dowden is concerned with command recognition and not security in
accessing the system. (See brief at pages 5-6.) We agree with appellant. Appellant
argues that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning or motivation to
combine the parts of the claimed invention which the examiner has assembled. Id. We
agree with appellant. Appellant argues that the skilled artisan would not have been able to
make the invention as claimed from the applied references “without hindsight knowledge of
the claimed invention.” (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellant.
The examiner argues that:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to forego the use of a secret phrase (and thereby
forego one level of security) and utilize the system commands (as taught by
Dowden) as the phrase to be processed in the voice verification
system because such a modification would permit the user to access the
system in a faster, easier manner (no password required prior to entering a
system command) while still maintaining security by verifying the identity of
the purported user.
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
6
(See answer at page 8.) The examiner continues to state that “[t]he reference speech
sample is arbitrary -- to utilize a system command would be an obvious choice and one
motivation for doing so is to make the system more user friendly.” (See answer at pages
9-10.) Furthermore, “[t]he examiner maintains that to use said verbally entered commands
as the word or phrase to be used in the verification process would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made.” (See supplemental answer at page 3.) The examiner
maintains that the “[i]ssue is whether or not use of system commands as the word or
phrase to be recognized is obvious in light of the prior art.” (See supplemental answer at
page 4.) We agree with the examiner that sample selection for use in the verification is
arbritrary, but disagree with the examiner that the prior
art applied against the claims teaches or would have suggested the use of the
system command as both the command and the voice sample for user verification.
We find that each of the prior art references applied against the claims teaches separate
portions of the claimed invention, but the examiner has not provided a convincing line of
reasoning for the combination and modification to the prior art
references beyond the above cited conclusion for the combination of teachings achieving
the invention as set forth in the language of claim 7. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 7, nor the other independent claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. Nor will we sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 5 and 8-10.
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
7
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
8
S. H. DWORETSKY
AT&T BELL LABORATORIES
600 MOUNTAIN AVENUE
P.O. BOX 636
MURRAY HILL, NJ 07974-0636