10961956 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2010)

Ex Parte Sereboff

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 7, 2010

10961956 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MARCEL J. SEREBOFF _____________ Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: May 10, 2010 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on May 4, 2010. We affirm. INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to answering an incoming phone call by matching a user’s voice signal with a stored voice print such as a user’s voice or other sounds such as clapping of hands (Spec. ¶¶ [0022]-[0033]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of answering a phone call, the method comprising providing a telephone having a casing, a microphone, a speaker and a memory, wherein the telephone is for receiving calls through at least one of a wireless or wire line telephone network storing a voice print of a user in the memory receiving by the telephone a signal of an incoming call generating a call alert monitoring for a voice signal which matches the voice print, and upon determination of a match, directly going off hook and enabling use of the microphone and the speaker without further steps by the user or the telephone wherein the step of generating a call alert is terminated in conjunction with going off hook wherein the storing step comprises limiting the voice print to a length of less than one second. Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Metroka US 5,175,759 Dec. 29, 1992 Parra US 5,313,556 May 17, 1994 Katzur US 6,240,303 B1 May 29, 2001 Shon US 6,418,328 B1 July 9, 2002 Elias US 2005/0069109 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katzur in view of Parra. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katzur in view of Parra and further in view of Shon. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katzur in view of Parra and further in view of Metroka. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katzur in view of Parra and further in view of Elias. Appellant argues rejected claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, 21, and 24 as a group with claim 1 as the representative claim (Br. 4-8). Accordingly, claims 2-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, 21, and 24 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 4 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Katzur in view of Parra teach “storing a voice print of a user” and “wherein the storing step comprises limiting the voice print to a length of less than one second” as recited in representative claim 1? FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. Katzur teaches using a voice recognition system to recognize and act on command words such as those that “train on a user’s speech” (col. 3, ll. 58- 65). 2. Katzur teaches using the command “‘on’” to activate the voice recognition system (col. 4, ll. 36-39). 3. Katzur teaches answering the user’s mobile telephone by activating the voice recognition system (col. 4, ll. 11-13). 4. Katzur teaches that using the voice recognition system reduces the risk of accidents (col. 3, ll. 6-14). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 5 teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007). “Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary . . . nor consistent with” our case law. Id. at 421. The KSR Court further recognized that “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, 21, and 24 Appellant argues that Parra does not teach a “‘voice print’” but rather “inaudible” portions of a person’s voice to identify an individual (Br. 5, 6). Furthermore, Appellant argues that Parra does not teach using a voice sample (i.e., voice print) of less than one second, but rather, deleting the audible portions of the voice sample and then using the modified inaudible sample of less than one second (Br. 6, 7). Appellant has provided no arguments regarding Katzur. Appellant has merely asserted Parra does not teach or suggest a voice print or a voice print of less than one second. However, one cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually (i.e., Parra not teaching the “voice print”) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., Katzur teaches a “voice print”). Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 6 At the outset, we note that the Examiner (Ans. 9) relied on the primary reference of Katzur for the teaching of storing a voice print. In particular, Katzur teaches a voice recognition system used to recognize and act on command words such as those that “train on a user’s speech” (FF 1). Katzur further teaches that one of those command words could be the command “‘on’” which is used to activate the voice recognition system (FF 2). Katzur also teaches answering the user’s mobile telephone by activating the voice recognition system (FF 3). It follows that articulating the command “on” to train the voice recognition system in a user’s speech (i.e., “storing a voice print of a user”) would result in subsequent recognition of that command to answer the user’s mobile phone (FF 1- 3). The Examiner (Ans. 10, 11) relied on Parra for the sole teaching that portions of sounds, regardless of type (e.g., inaudible), as short as 1/100 of a second can be used in voice recognition systems. We agree with the Examiner’s (Ans. 9-11) findings of fact and analysis as set out in the Answer and we adopt them as our own. In addition to those findings, we find Parra is cumulative in that it would be common sense that the short command of “on” as taught by Katzur would constitute a “voice print” having a length of less than one second. Furthermore, it would constitute a predictable result that such commands for answering the phone while driving as taught by Katzur (FF 1-4) would be limited to that time frame, as the desired end result is to answer the phone as soon as possible and prior to the received call being directed to voice mail. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 421. Appeal 2008-003802 Application 10/961,956 7 Accordingly, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-19, 21 and 24, which fall with claim 1. Rejection of claims 4, 6-7, 12, 14-15, 20, 22-23, 25-27 For similar reasons as those set forth supra, we will also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 6-7, 12, 14-15, 20, 22-23, 25-27, because Appellant merely contends that the additional references of Shon, Metroka, and Elias, fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies of Katzur and Parra (Br. 8-9). CONCLUSION Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner did not err in finding that Katzur in view of Parra teach “storing a voice print of a user” and “wherein the storing step comprises limiting the voice print to a length of less than one second.” ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-27 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED KIS SoCAL IP LAW GROUP, L.L.P. 310 N. WESTLAKE BLVD. STE 120 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362