Ex Parte Rubin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

13567572 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/567,572 08/06/2012 Andrew E. Rubin
26192 7590 06/17/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-4343001 1078
EXAMINER
ORTIZ SANCHEZ, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW E. RUBIN, JOHAN SCHALKWYK, and
MARIA CAROLINA PARADA SAN MARTIN
Appeal2014-006329 1
Application 13/567 ,5722
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-22, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The record will be updated to include a transcript of the oral hearing held
May 17, 2016.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
3 Claim 2 has been canceled. App. Br. 19.
Appeal2014-006329
Application 13/567,572
fNVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to determining
hotword suitability. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving speech data that encodes a candidate hotword
spoken by a user;
evaluating the speech data, or a transcription of the
candidate hotword, using one or more predetermined criteria;
generating, by one or more computers, a hotword
suitability score for the candidate hotword based on evaluating
the speech data, or a transcription of the candidate hotword, using
the one or more predetermined criteria, wherein the hotword
suitability score reflects a suitability of the candidate hotword for
future use as a hotword; and
providing a representation of the hotword suitability score
for output to the user.
App. Br. 19.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9--14,16-18, and 21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Konopka et al. (US
2008/0059188 Al; published Mar. 6, 2008) and Stieglitz et al. (US
2005/0235341 Al; published Oct. 20, 2005). Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Konopka, Stieglitz, and Kepuska
("Wake-up-Word Speech Recognition"; published June 2011). Final
Act. 10-14.
2
Appeal2014-006329
Application 13/567,572
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Konopka, Stieglitz, and Arnn et al. (US
200910143057 Al; published June 4, 2009). Final Act. 14--16.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Konopka as disclosing the
recited steps, except for the limitation "wherein the hotword suitability score
reflects a suitability of the candidate hotword for future use as a hotword,"
for which the Examiner relies on Stieglitz. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Konopka
iii! 11, 36, 37, 41; Stieglitz iii! 21, 22, 25, 46, 47).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently
shown that the combination of Konopka and Stieglitz teaches or suggests the
step of "providing a representation of the hotword suitability score for output
to the user," recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 5-7. Although the Examiner
has identified a hotword suitability score in Konopka, the Examiner has not
identified with sufficient specificity where either Konopka or Stieglitz
teaches or suggests that such hotword suitability score is provided "for
output to the user," as claim 1 requires. See Final Act. 3 (citing Konopka
if 41); Ans. 16 (citing Konopka if 62).
In particular, we find insufficient the Examiner's explanation in the
Answer that, because the phrase "providing a representation of the hotword
suitability score for display to the user" 4 is vague, presenting the user with
an ordered list or presenting alternatives to the user is a representation of the
4 We observe that the Examiner misquoted the recited claim language,
which does not require that the score be provided for display, but for output.
See Ans. 16.
3
Appeal2014-006329
Application 13/567,572
hotword suitability score previously identified by the Examiner. See Ans. 16
(citing Konopka i-f 62). Moreover, we disagree with the Examiner's
characterization in the Answer that the "attention word" in Konopka "is an
open-ended natural language user request" that is matched with the most
likely command corresponding to the request. Ans. 14--15 (citing Konopka
i-f 11 ). Konopka clearly differentiates an "attention word" from the "open-
ended, natural language user request" that follows the attention word and is
matched with a command. Konopka i-fi-111, 55. Paragraph 62 of Konopka,
relied on by the Examiner for the "providing" step of claim 1, is directed to
resolving ambiguities in, and providing alternatives to, the open-ended
natural language user request, not the attention word. See Konopka
,-r,-r 5 5---6 2.
For these reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Konopka and Stieglitz
would have rendered the subject matter of claim 1 obvious. Independent
claims 21 and 22 recite similar limitations. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Additionally,
because the Examiner has not pointed to any teaching in Arnn or knowledge
in the art to overcome the noted deficiencies of Konopka and Stieglitz, we
do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 5.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-22.
REVERSED
4