Ex parte Sharman et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 1999

08369022 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 1999)

Application for patent filed January 5, 1995.1
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RICHARD A. SHARMAN,
and PAUL S. ADAMS
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,0221
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before BARRETT, LEE and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's rejection of claims 1-16. No claim has been
allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Pate, “Trends in multimedia applications and the network
models to support them,” Proceedings of IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM ‘90), pp. 317-321,
12/02/90.
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
2
Morse, “Using Computer Conferencing to Improve Productivity in
the ‘90's,’ Proceedings of 1988 IEEE Engineering Management
Conference, PP. 177-186, 10/24/88.
Shelley et al. Patent No. 5,345,551 Sep. 6, 1994
(Shelley) (Filed Nov.
9,1992)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-6 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Pate and Morse.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pate, Morse, and Shelley.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a system and method for
conducting a conference between multiple participants each
located at a workstation. Independent claims 1 and 11 are
reproduced below:
1. A method of textually recording at a workstation
spoken contributions to an audio conference, each participant
in the conference having an associated workstation, the
workstations being linked together by one or more networks,
the method comprising the steps of:
receiving local speech input at the workstation;
performing speech recognition on the local
speech input at the workstation to generate a local text
equivalent;
transmitting the local speech input to the other
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
3
participant(s) in the conference plus the corresponding text
equivalents transmitted from the workstation associated with
the respective participant;
storing both the local text equivalents and the
text equivalents received from the other workstation(s) in a
text file.
11. A system for textually recording at a
workstation spoken contributions to an audio conference, each
participant in the conference having an associated
workstation, the workstations being linked together by one or
more networks, the method comprising the steps of:
means for receiving local speech input at the
workstation;
means for performing speech recognition on the
local speech input at the workstation to generate a local text
equivalent;
means for transmitting the local speech input to
the other participant(s) in the conference;
means for receiving spoken contributions from
the other participant(s) in the conference plus the
corresponding text equivalents transmitted from the
workstation associated with the respective participant;
means for storing both the local text
equivalents and the text equivalents received from the other
workstation(s) in a text file.
Opinion
We reverse. Our opinion is based solely on the rationale
and position as articulated and advanced by the examiner. A
reversal of the rejections on appeal is only an indication of
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
4
the lack of merit of the examiner’s expressed view and not an
affirmative or blank indication that the claims are
patentable.
Pate generally discusses trends in multimedia
applications. Examples include multimedia mail and multimedia
conferencing. Furthermore, Pate discusses media conversion.
On page 319, in column 2, Pate states:
Since multimedia applications by design are
able to handle different types of media, an
obvious next step is to convert between
media types. It might be cheaper to store
or transfer information in a different
format than the one in which it will be
used. One example would be speech stored
and transferred as text that is converted
back to speech at the destination. As with
most media conversion, some information is
lost -- in this case the characteristics of
the original speaker’s voice -- but for
some applications that is not a problem.
Media conversion can be especially helpful
for the disabled. Text can be converted to
speech for the blind, speech can be
converted to text or even to video clips of
simple sign language gestures for the deaf.
The appellants argue that Pate contemplates media
conversion only as alternatives, depending on specific
criteria such as cost reduction in transmission. The
appellants point out that the claimed invention requires the
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
5
receipt of both (1) speech data from other audio conference
participants, and (2) the converted text equivalent to that
data, and that Pate nowhere suggests the dual-receipt feature
of the claimed invention.
To satisfy the requirement of receiving both speech and
its text equivalent, the examiner cites to the following
disclosure in Pate on page 318, in column 2, paragraph 2 [1]:
This application is an extension of the
text-based electronic mail model to
incorporate audio, video, and graphics.
It should also be noted that the above-quoted text is
immediately preceded by the caption “Multimedia Mail:”. The
examiner further quotes Pate on page 318, in column 2,
paragraph 4:
NEC in Japan is also investigating
multimedia conferencing incorporating
graphics, still images, text, voice, and
hand drawn figures transmitted using
satellite communication and ISDN.
The disclosure cited by the examiner, however, is
generic, and would not have reasonably suggested the specific
requirement of receiving both the speech data as well as its
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
6
corresponding “text equivalent” as the appellants have
claimed. The general teaching of an extension of the text-
based electronic mail model to incorporate audio, video, and
graphics, would not have reasonably suggested sending both
speech and its “equivalent” text. For instance, the
incorporated audio may simply add explanation to a particular
portion of the text, as is described in Pate on page 318,
column 2, paragraph 1:
With these features [incorporating audio,
video, and data] it is possible to create a
message with a graphics overlay or
explanatory text of audio synchronized to
appropriate points in the message.
Explanatory audio material added to a text message is not
the same as speech data accompanied by its equivalent text
arrived at by local speech recognition on the audio speech
input. Note that claim 1 requires performing speech
recognition on the local speech input at the workstation to
generate a local text equivalent, and claim 11 recites a means
for performing speech recognition on the local speech input at
the work station to generate a local text equivalent. Thus,
corresponding text equivalent is generated from audio speech
by speech recognition.
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
7
Also, with regard to multimedia conferencing purported
being investigated by NEC, the description is not sufficiently
specific. Mere teaching multimedia conferencing incorporating
graphics, still images, text, voice, and hand drawn figures
transmitted using satellite communication and ISDN does not
reasonably suggest sending both audio speech together with its
locally generated text equivalent to other conferees. A
conclusion of obviousness cannot be based on speculation. The
mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With regard to claims 3 and 14, which further require the
transmission of the local text equivalent of the local speech
input to the other workstations in the conference, the
examiner is erroneous in concluding that Morse discloses or
reasonably suggests that feature. In Morse, all inputs are
transmitted to a central system and there is no teaching of
any local conversion of speech into text. Without there being
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
8
any locally generated text equivalent to an audio speech
input, Morse would not have reasonably suggested sending the
local text equivalent to other workstations. In Morse, inputs
are stored in a central repository called a file and a
conference participant accesses the file at its own
convenience. See Morse at page 178, column 1, paragraphs 2
and 4. Morse would not have reasonably suggested either (1)
receiving both speech input and a corresponding local text
equivalent of that speech from another workstation, as is
required by claims 1 and 11, or (2) transmitting the local
text equivalent of a local speech input to other workstations,
as is required by claims 3 and 14. The examiner has
identified no reasonable suggestion from Morse that the dialog
information generated from each station should contain both
audio speech and corresponding locally generated equivalent
text.
As applied by the examiner, Shelley does not make up for
the deficiencies of Pate and Morse. Accordingly, for the
foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
1-6 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pate and Morse,
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
9
and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pate, Morse, and
Shelley.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Pate and Morse is reversed.
The rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pate and Morse and Shelley is
reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
10
Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
11
Stephen T. Keohane
972/B656
IBM CORPORATION
P.O. Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709