Ex Parte Sistrunk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2016

13399948 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/399,948 02/17/2012
62439 7590
SINORICA, LLC
19785 Crystal Rock Drive
Suite 207
Germantown, MD 20874
09/06/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark L. SISTRUNK
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.
TP-SISM-TCCl 7316
EXAMINER
KAZEMINEZHAD, FARZAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2016 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):
SINORICA@GMAIL.COM
sinorica@outlook.com
pair@sinorica.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK L. SISTRUNK
Appeal 2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9--13, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to a software application that allows an
electronic communication device to translate messages. See generally Spec.
1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of translating incoming messages, outgoing
messages, and user input texts on an electronic communication
device by executing computer-executable instructions stored on
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the method
comprises the steps of:
providing a plurality of software engines, wherein said
plurality of software engines includes a spoken language
identification engine, a written language identification engine, a
machine translation engine, a text-to-speech engine, and a
speech-to-text engine;
providing a contact database with a plurality of contacts,
wherein each of said plurality of contacts has an information
profile with a default language;
providing a linguistic database with a plurality of
language conversion templates;
providing a plurality of communication formats, wherein
said plurality of communication formats includes a phone call
conversation and a text message conversation;
compiling a list of available languages from said plurality
of language conversion templates;
prompting to choose a user language by displaying said
list of available languages on a graphic user interface;
retrieving a source text in an original language from
either an incoming message, an outgoing message, or a user
input text, further comprising
prompting to speak in order to create said outgoing
message by displaying a record button on said graphic
user interface,
retrieving said outgoing message in said original
language as outgoing audio data,
2
Appeal2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
assigning said user language to be said original
language for said outgoing audio data,
converting said outgoing audio data into said
source text with said speech-to-text engine,
prompting to choose said preferred language of
said target text by displaying said list of available
languages on said graphic user interface;
assigning said original language of said incoming
message as said default language for a particular contact within
said plurality of contacts;
saving said default language to said information profile
for said particular contact within said contact database;
displaying said source text in said original language
through said graphic user interface;
prompting to translate said source text into a target text
by displaying a translate button on said graphic user interface;
producing said target text in a preferred language from
said source text with said machine translation engine, further
compnsmg
searching through each of said plurality of
language conversion templates to find an appropriate
language conversion template for said original language
and said preferred language,
retrieving said appropriate language conversion
template from said linguistic database, and
replacing said original language of said source text
with said preferred language by referencing said
appropriate language conversion template in order to
produce said target text;
displaying said target text in said preferred language
through said graphic user interface;
prompting for said target text to be read aloud by
displaying a speak button on said graphic user interface;
converting said target text into target audio data with said
text-to-speech engine; and
sending said target audio data to a speaker in order for
said target text to be read aloud in said preferred language.
3
Appeal2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
References and Rejections
Claims 3, 4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2010/0121629 Al, Mar. 13, 2010) and
Levin (US 2004/0102956 Al, May 27, 2004).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, Second paragraph
Claims must "particularly point [] out and distinctly claim [] the
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
Because Appellant does not contest the merits of the
Examiner's rejection, we summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection
of claims 3, 4, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Obviousness
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below. 1
1 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2).
4
Appeal2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
Issue 1
Appellant contends Cohen does not teach ''providing a plurality of
software engines, wherein said plurality of software engines includes a
spoken language identification engine, a written language identification
engine, a machine translation engine, a text-to-speech engine, and a speech-
to-text engine," as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 5---6.
In particular, Appellant asserts the key part of the limitation is providing an
engine, and the Examiner's mapping does not show "providing a ...
engine." App. Br. 5---6. Appellant argues Cohen's teaching of translation is
not the claimed "identification" engine. See App. Br. 6.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant's argument about
"providing a ... engine" is not directed to the Examiner's specific findings.
The Examiner cites Cohen's paragraphs 17 and Figures 1-5 for teaching
"providing a ... engine." See Final Act. 9; Cohen i-f 17 ("Examples of such
engines and basic tasks include: speech-to-text converters, text-to-speech
converters, text-to-text translators, text compression, speech compression
and encryption."); Fig. 1-5 (showing various engines). Further, in response
to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing
Cohen teaches "providing a ... spoken language identification engine." See
Ans. 3-5. Appellant fails to persuasively respond to such findings and
therefore, fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of
this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
5
Appeal2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
In response to Appellant's argument that Cohen's teaching of
translation is not the claimed "identification" engine (App. Br. 6), the
Examiner provides further findings showing Cohen teaches "a ...
identification engine." See Ans. 5---6. In particular, the Examiner explains
Cohen's real-time speech translation requires language identification and,
therefore, Cohen teaches the claimed identification engine. See Ans. 6.
Appellant fails to persuasively respond to such findings and, therefore, fails
to show error in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952
F.2d at 391.
Issue 2
Appellant contends Cohen does not teach ''prompting for said target
text to be read aloud by displaying a speak button on said graphic user
interface," as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 6-7.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Again, Appellant's argument
is not directed to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner cites
Levin-not Cohen-for teaching the disputed claim limitation. See Final
Act. 15-16; Ans. 7-8. Appellant does not assert, let alone show, the
Examiner's mapping based on Levin is improper. See Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-13, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
6
Appeal2015-006531
Application 13/399,948
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and
9--13.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7