Ex Parte Rajput et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2015

13596313 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/596,313 08/28/2012
89885 7590 12/09/2015
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nitendra Rajput
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.
IN920100056US2(790.069C) 5955
EXAMINER
SHAH, PARAS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITENDRA RAJPUT and OM DESHMUKH
Appeal2014-003239
Application 13/596,313
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003239
Application 13/596,313
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to "[ s ]ystems and associated methods
configured to provide user-driven audio content navigation for the spoken
web . . . . Embodiments allow users to skim audio for content that seems to
be of relevance to the user ... and mark point[ s] of interest within the
audio." Abstract. Claim 1 is independent and illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving one or more audio browsing commands over an
audio channel;
responsive to the one or more audio browsing commands,
saving an application state corresponding to a current point of
user interaction with audio; and
responsive to the one or more audio browsing commands,
performing one or more of:
generating a marker corresponding to a marked
position in the audio; and
re-synthesizing at least a portion of the audio to
produce a portion of the audio having an altered playback
speed according to the one or more audio browsing commands.
Br. 16.
The Examiner s Re} ections
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maes et al. (US 7 ,092,496 B 1; issued Aug. 15, 2006) ("Maes") and
Holtzberg (US 6,625,261 B2; issued Sept. 23, 2003). Final Act. 6-10.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maes, Holtzberg, and Cruickshank et al. (US 6,009,386;
issued Dec. 28, 1999). Final Act. 10-11.
2
Appeal2014-003239
Application 13/596,313
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maes, Holtzberg, and Dow et al. (US 2004/0037401 Al; published Feb.
26, 2004). Final Act. 12.
Related Appeals
Although not identified as such by Appellants, we note that co-
pending Appeal 2014-001662, pertaining to Application 12/822,802, is
related to the instant appeal. See Br. 4; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(ii).
Provisional Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants do not traverse the provisional non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claims 1-10 over claims 10-19 of
co-pending Application No. 12/822,802. Compare Br. 11-14, with Final
Act. 3---6. Accordingly, we summarily and proforma sustain the provisional
rejection of claims 1-10 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting. 2
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Appellants merely state the Examiner's
rejection, cite certain claimed features and case law, and conclude that those
claimed features are not taught or suggested by Maes and Holtzberg, when
the claim is properly construed in light of the specification. Br. 10-12.
2 We note that our summary affirmance of the non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection does not change the provisional nature of the
rejection.
3
Appeal2014-003239
Application 13/596,313
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive because they do not
address substantively the Examiner's findings and conclusions and point out
with particularity the Examiner's purported error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining that appellants must advance substantive arguments beyond
mere recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 1 and
dependent claims 2-9, which were not argued separately with particularity
beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1. See Br. 12.
Claim 10
Appellants argue Maes and Holtzberg fail to teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 10 because "Maes and Holtzberg have nothing to do
with a telecom voice application with a plurality of voice sites." Br. 13
(citing Appellants' Figs. 1-2B).
We find Appellants' arguments relating to Maes and Holtzberg
unpersuasive because they do not address substantively the Examiner's
findings and conclusions and point out with particularity the Examiner's
purported error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Further, contrary to Appellants' arguments, we agree with the Examiner that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Maes' s "website
accessed by a phone call" and Holtzberg's "voicemail retrieval using a
phone" to relate to telecom voice applications. See Ans. 5---6 (citing Maes
col. 10, 11. 60---62; Holtzberg Fig. 2; col. 1, 11. 8-10).
4
Appeal2014-003239
Application 13/596,313
Appellants also argue Dow fails to teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 10 because Dow describes traditional computer-based websites that
are not "voice sites." Br. 13-14 (citing Dow i-f 12). We find Appellants'
argument unpersuasive because Appellants do not substantively address or
rebut the Examiner's findings. See Ans. 6 (citing Dow i-fi-14--5; Spec. i-f 30).
Further, we agree with the Examiner's finding that, consistent with
Appellants' Specification, Dow's voice-enabled websites teach the claimed
"plurality of voice sites." See Ans. 6; compare Dow i-fi-14--5 (disclosing that
a telephone can be used with a VoiceXML browser running on a telephony
server to access voice enabled web sites) with Spec. 30 (disclosing that voice
sites are voice-driven applications hosted in the telecom network that can be
accessed from any phone instrument through an ordinary phone call).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 is 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 ).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
mp
5