Ex Parte VanBlon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2019

14276614 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/276,614 05/13/2014
58127 7590 06/11/2019
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Russell Speight V anBlon
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.
RPS920140008USNP(7 l 0.331) 9423
EXAMINER
HUBER, PAUL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUSSELL SPEIGHT V ANBLON, ARNOLD S. WEKSLER,
JOHN CARL MESE, and NATHAN J. PETERSON
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/2 7 6, 614 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, Lenovo (Singapore) PTE, LTD, is the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to "detect[ing if] a device is on mute
when the primary or active speaker is talking[, and, if] the primary or active
speaker is saying something while the device is muted, the device notifies
the speaker of this muted condition." Spec. ,r 15.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, at a device, a primary speaker is providing audio
input;
detecting, at the device, a voice data link providing audio of the
primary speaker to another speaker is muted;
selecting, based on a factor associated with the primary speaker,
a notification from a plurality of notifications; and
providing the notification to the primary speaker that the voice
data link is muted.
The Rejections2
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by McDysan et al. (US 2013/0051543 Al; Feb.
28, 2013, hereinafter "McDysan"). Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
McDysan and Jaccino (US 9,203,979 Bl; Dec. 1, 2015). Final Act. 4--5.
2 The Answer withdraws a rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Ans. 4.
2
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
ANALYSIS
I. Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and
2 0 for Anticipation
Appellants contend that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because
McDysan fails to teach two limitations: (1) "detecting ... a primary
speaker;" and (2) "selecting, based on a factor associated with the primary
speaker, a notification from a plurality of notifications." Reply Br. 13-14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following
reasons.
Appellants argue that McDysan does not teach "a primary speaker"
for the following reasons:
[McDysan's] user ... has to provide a vocal pattern that
prompts the un-muting of the device. See McDysan at [0029].
[W]henever the vocal pattern of the registered user is identified,
the system may prompt the user for un-muting the device ...
using whatever notification device was selected by the user
during registration. See McDysan at [0042]-[0044].
Accordingly, in McDysan the user has to be a registered user
and the vocal patterns of the user recognized against the
previously provided vocal patterns before the system will un-
mute the line.
[McDysan's] registered user is readily distinguishable from a
primary user because a registered user has to take an additional
step (i.e., register their vocal pattern) whereas a primary user is
simply a user currently providing vocal input (See Specification
at [0027], stating "[i]n an embodiment, a primary or active
speake ... ").
Reply Br. 13-14.
We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms,
consistent with the Specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary
3
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Where, as here, the Specification does not
explicitly define a term, the term should be given its ordinary meaning. In
re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The ordinary meaning of the
term "primary speaker" does not limit this term to only those speakers who
have not taken any other steps, such as registering, before providing vocal
input.
We agree with the Examiner's determination that McDysan's
registered user teaches the claimed "primary speaker." Regarding
McDysan's teachings, the Examiner finds that "[t]he user who registers their
vocal pattern into the device for control of that device is the primary
user/speaker of that device." Ans. 4. And "when the primary user is
speaking and the device is muted, the primary speaker will be detected by
detection of the speaker's registered vocal pattern and the device will be un-
muted either automatically or manually." Id. McDysan's registered user is
a "primary speaker," as recited in the independent claims, because "if
another user who is not the registered user of the device provides vocal input
into the device, that user is not detected as the primary speaker." Id.
The Examiner cites McDysan's paragraphs 30 and 31 to reject the
claimed "selecting, based on a factor associated with the primary speaker, a
notification from a plurality of notifications." Ans. 2, 5. Relevant portions
of McDysan are reproduced below:
[C]onference management system 120 may allow the user to
select an automatic un-mute mode or an indicator to un-mute
mode, as described further below. The user may select different
modes for different circumstances (e.g., a time of the
conference call, identities of other participants of the
conference call, a location of user device 110 during the
4
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
conference call (e.g., in an office of the user or a residence of
the user), etc.) ....
[F]or each selection of the indicator to un-mute mode, the user
may select a type of an indicator (e.g., a display notification
( e.g., "Do you want to un-mute?") on a display associated with
user device 110, an audio notification/signal ( e.g., a tone, a
recorded message (e.g., "Un-mute now?"), etc.) via a speaker of
user device 110, a visual notification/signal (e.g., a blinking
light on user device 110), a physical signal (e.g., a vibration of
user device 110), etc.) to be used to notify the user that user
device 110 may need to be un-muted due to the recognition of
the vocal pattern.
McDysan ,r,r 30-31 ( emphasis added).
Appellants argue that McDysan fails to teach the above-quoted
limitation for two reasons: ( 1) McDysan' s notification is selected by the
user during the registration process, so McDysan's notification is always the
same for that user; and (2) McDysan's notification does not occur after
"detecting, at the device, a voice data link providing audio of the primary
speaker to another speaker is muted." Reply Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and adopt the
Examiner's findings as presented in the Answer. Ans. 2, 5. McDysan's
system receives instructions regarding how to respond to a vocal pattern for
each of many different circumstances ( e.g. a time of the conference call,
location of the user, etc.). McDysan ,r 30; see also Ans. 5. As part of these
instructions, a user can select to either (1) automatically un-mute or (2) have
an "indicator to un-mute." McDysan ,r 30; see also Ans. 5. And for each
selection of the "indicator to un-mute," the user may select from many types
of indicators (i.e. notifications), which the system will use to notify the user
upon recognizing the user's vocal pattern. McDysan ,r 31; see also Ans. 5.
5
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
We thus agree with the Examiner that McDysan discloses that its
conference management system is configurable to provide, for a single user,
different types of notifications upon recognizing that user's vocal pattern.
Ans. 2, 5. The type of a notification that the conference management system
issues, during a conference call, depends on the "many [possible] different
circumstances ( e.g. a time of the conference call, location of the user, etc.)"
in which the user finds himself or herself when participating in the
conference call. Id. We thus agree with the Examiner that McDysan
discloses "selecting, based on a factor associated with the primary speaker, a
notification from a plurality of notifications," as claimed. Id..
Although not dispositive on this issue, we additionally note that the
language of claim 1 does not require that the claimed selecting of a
notification occur after the claimed detecting of the primary speaker, like
Appellants argue. See Altris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369--
70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Presenting an established "two-part test for determining
if the steps of a method claim that do not otherwise recite an order, must
nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written.").
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7,
9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20.
II. Rejection of Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 for Anticipation
Appellants discuss representative claim 3 to collectively argue that the
Examiner errs in rejecting claims 3, 4, 13, and 14. Claim 3, which depends
from claim 1, recites: "wherein detecting the primary speaker is providing
audio input comprises identifying the primary speaker using a biometric
identification."
6
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
The Examiner finds that McDysan discloses this limitation because
the "primary speaker [in McDysan] is detected by recognizing the stored
vocal pattern of the speaker. Identifying vocal patterns is biometric
identification as claimed." Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that "McDysan makes no mention of using a video
camera, or any other biometric identification, to detect "the primary speaker
is providing audio input." Reply Br. 15. Appellants also argue that
"McDysan' s use of a video camera to allow a user to respond to a
notification is clearly distinguishable from 'wherein detecting the primary
speaker is providing audio input comprises identifying the primary speaker
using a biometric identification."' Id.
We determine that Appellants' arguments are unresponsive to the
Examiner's findings in the Examiner's Answer. We further determine that
identifying a speaker based on vocal patterns qualifies as a "biometric
identification," under a broadest reasonable interpretation. McDysan thus
discloses the limitations of claim 3.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13,
and 14.
III. Rejection of Claim 10 for Anticipation
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites: "detecting a short
range wireless paired input device; wherein the notification is selected
according to the short range wireless paired input device."
Appellants argue that paragraph 50 of McDysan, which is the portion
that the Examiner relies upon to reject claim 10, teaches "identifying the
participants of the conference call based on unique identifiers of the user
devices," which is different from what is claimed. Reply Br. 16. Appellants
7
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
further argue that "McDysan always provides the same notification" after a
user registers, and the notification in McDysan thus does not change
"according to the short range wireless paired input device." Id. at 17.
First, we find that McDysan discloses that user devices communicate
with each other through a network 140, which may include an ad hoc
network. McDysan ,r 20. The independent claims do not specify the
communication range ( e.g. a maximum distance or range of distances) or the
communications standards used by the "short range wireless paired input
device," and we thus determine that, under a broadest reasonable
interpretation, an ad hoc network qualifies as a "short range" wireless
network. We further find that McDysan discloses identifying conference
participants based on unique identifiers such as device identifiers. McDysan
,r 50. We thus determine that McDysan discloses the claimed "detecting a
short range wireless paired input device."
Second, as the Examiner correctly finds, McDysan discloses that the
type of notification is selected according to the registered user that is
associated with an input device 110. Ans. 3; see also McDysan ,r,r 30-31
( disclosing that a user can select a type of indicator that the system will use
in response to detecting that user's vocal patterns). Further, the "registered
user ... has set particular notification settings." Ans. 3; see also McDysan ,r
30-31. Because McDysan's input device 110 is associated with the
registered user, and the notification type is selected based on the registered
user, we determine that McDysan sufficiently discloses "wherein the
notification is selected according to the short range wireless paired input
device."
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 10.
8
Appeal2017-006082
Application 14/276,614
IV. Rejection of Claims 8 and 18 for Obviousness
Appellants present arguments under a separate heading for claims 8
and 18, but merely argue that Jaccino does not cure the deficiencies of
McDysan with regards to the independent claims. Reply Br. 18 ("Jaccino
fails to overcome the multitude of deficiencies of McDysan. ").
Because we determine that McDysan anticipates the independent
claims, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9