Ex Parte TheimerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201709847145 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 09/847,145 05/02/2001 Wolfgang Theimer 042933/406929 6585 10949 7590 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LE V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2017 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): u sptomail @ alston .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WOLFGANG THEIMER Appeal 2016-007147 Application 09/847,1451 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4—9, and 11—21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 2, 3, 10, and 22 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. App. Br. 2. In an earlier appeal (2009-001170, decided October 30, 2009), another panel affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—22. Appeal 2016-007147 Application 09/847,145 Appellant’s Invention Appellant invented a method and apparatus for allowing a user to issue verbal commands to control an electrical/electronic system containing one or more application devices. Spec. 1:3-6, 2:4—15. In particular, upon receiving the user’s command, a processor determines whether the control information therein is unambiguously directed to a specific target function to be performed by a particular device. Id. at 2:10-23. If so, the target function is performed by the selected device. If the received command is deemed otherwise ambiguous, two or more selections of possible target functions and/or target devices are provided to the user for clarification. Id. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving control information in the form of a spoken command; determining, with a processor, whether the control information is ambiguous or unambiguous, wherein the control information is determined to be ambiguous in an instance in which the control information is applicable to more than one possible target functions associated with a target application device; in an instance in which control information is unambiguous, automatically identifying a target application device or a plurality of application devices associated with the control information; in an instance in which control information is determined by the processor to be ambiguous: a) causing output of at least two selections of the possible target functions associated with the target application device, and b) receiving an indication of a 2 Appeal 2016-007147 Application 09/847,145 selection such that the control information becomes unambiguous; and executing a command associated with the control information on the target application device. Taylor Bush Konopka Osawa Prior Art Relied Upon June 23, 1998 May 28, 2002 Mar. 6, 2008 Sept. 7, 1994 US 5,769,527 US 6,397,186 B1 US 2008/0059188 A1 GB 2 275 800 A Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4, 5, 11—15, and 17—19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bush and Konopka. Final Act. 2—6. Claim 6—8, 16, and 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bush, Konopka, and Taylor. Final Act. 6—7. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bush, Konopka, Taylor, and Osawa. Final Act. 7—8. ANALYSIS Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the proposed combination of Bush and Konopka does not teach or suggest “determining the control information is ambiguous in an instance in which the control information is applicable to more than one possible target functions associated with a target application device.” App. Br. 8—9. In particular, Appellant argues that although the cited portions of Konopka relied upon by the Examiner teach ambiguity in the instance when a command pertains to 3 Appeal 2016-007147 Application 09/847,145 more than one target device, such alternative language has been deleted from the claim, and the relied-upon disclosure of Konopka fails to teach or suggest the pending claim requirement. Id. at 9 (citing Konopka 82—87). According to Appellant, the Examiner has not accounted for the required claim limitation of determining that control information is applicable to multiple target functions associated with the same target device. Id. at 9-10, Reply Br. 1—2. In response, the Examiner finds the following: Although Konopka also teaches an alternative deleted limitation, Konopka still teaches the limitations that remained in the claims, i.e. a system for controlling a device such as a television using voice commands wherein, if ambiguity arises due to a voice command, causing output of at least two selection of possible target functions associated with a target application device. For example, ambiguity may arise when a user wants to watch a movie on a target device such as the television and the natural language interface module presents alternatives to the user (para [0086]: e.g., “Did you want to watch a movie on the DVD player or the VCR?” wherein a first function is playing the DVD and a second function is playing the VCR). Although this is only one instance in which control information is determined to be ambiguous for a target device and these alternative functions are provided as options, one skilled in the art could apply such teachings to any ambiguous scenarios where control information ambiguity arises when applying to another target device with a plurality of possible associated functions. Ans. 9-10 (citing Konopka 1 86). We do not agree with the Examiner that although Konopka discloses issuing a command that may be deemed ambiguous as to which of a plurality of devices it may pertain, the command can also be interpreted as being a first command pertaining to a first device, and a second command pertaining 4 Appeal 2016-007147 Application 09/847,145 to another device, as recited. Id. Further, the Examiner provides no factual basis from the prior art to support the finding that “one [of ordinary] skill in the art could apply such teachings to any ambiguous scenarios where control information ambiguity arises.” Simply put, we agree with Appellant that the cited portion of Konopka teaches resolving ambiguity pertaining to which of a plurality of known devices an identified function applies, as opposed to the required limitation of resolving ambiguity pertaining to possible functions that may be performed by a single device. Because Appellant has shown a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4—9, and 11—21, which also recite the disputed limitations. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4—9, and 11—21. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation