Ex Parte Weiser

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2012

10177685 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS WEISER

____________

Appeal 2010-004819
Application 10/177,685
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004819
Application 10/177,685

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-30, and 32 (App. Br. 3). Claims 5, 10, and 31 were
cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A device having at least one controllable device part,
said device comprising:

voice control means for voice-actuated control of the at
least one device part; and

test means electrically coupled to said voice control
means for testing a functioning of the voice control means,
wherein said test means comprises means for generating control
data for controlling operation of at least said voice control
means, and means for electrically feeding a test signal to the
voice control means for testing the functioning of the voice
control means.

Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-16, 18, 20, and 23-30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeJaco (WO/0046793) (Ans. 3-
8).
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DeJaco in view of Spoltman (U.S. 5,715,369) (Ans.
8-9).
Claims 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DeJaco in view of Kitamura (U.S. 5,008,923) (Ans.
9).
Appeal 2010-004819
Application 10/177,685

3

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that DeJaco teaches or suggests
“electrically feeding a test signal to the voice control means for testing the
functioning of the voice control means,” as recited in independent claim 1
and as similarly recited in independent claim 30?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 30 as obvious because DeJaco does not teach the claim
limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues that DeJaco —
instead of disclosing electrically feeding a test signal to a voice control
means — “discloses audibly providing a test signal to the voice control
means” (id.). Appellant further argues that “the hands-free car kit taught in
DeJaco et al. would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the
elements as well as a change in the basic principle under which it was
constructed in order to electrically feed a test signal . . . to the voice control
means” (App. Br. 6).
But we agree with the Examiner’s finding that DeJaco teaches or
suggests the claim limitation in dispute (Ans. 10). DeJaco discloses “[a]n
apparatus for testing user interface integrity of speech-enabled devices”
Appeal 2010-004819
Application 10/177,685

4
(Abstract). DeJaco further discloses that “the testing system sends a
command through a cable electrically coupling the testing system to the
diagnostic, or serial, port of the VR [Voice Recognition] device” (p. 8, ll. 9-
11).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that DeJaco would not require
any substantial redesign because the speech test signal “is converted to an
electrical signal that is processed by an acoustic processor” (Ans. 10). In
other words, DeJaco teaches providing an acoustic signal to test a VR
device, converting the acoustic signal to an electrical signal, and sending the
electrical signal to the VR through a cable (p. 8, ll. 9-11).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claims 1 and 30. We also find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of the dependent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-29, and
32) because Appellant did not set forth any separate patentabiliy arguments
for those claims (see App. Br. 6-7).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-30,
and 32 as obvious.
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

peb