Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2021

2020001378 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2021)

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.
15/694,733 09/01/2017 Alexander Waibel 26295-38105/US 8682
87851 7590 06/24/2021
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, SHAUN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2021 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER WAILBEL and IAN R. LANE
____________________

Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 (all of the pending claims). Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material
added):
1. A method comprising:
[A.] receiving, from a user, an utterance in a first language,
the utterance including a term,
[A.i.] the utterance associated with an indication from
the user to add the term to a user’s individual
lexicon of a speech recognition system;
[B.] determining a word class for the term;
[C.] determining a first value of an intra-class probability for
the term,
[C.i.] the intra-class probability reflecting a relevance
of the term specific to the user relative to other
terms in the user’s individual lexicon that belong to
the word class;
[D.] increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the
first value to a second value based on the indication from
the user to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon,
[D.i.] the increase in the intra-class probability
representing the term being more likely to be used
by the user due to the indication from the user to add
the term to the user’s individual lexicon;
[E.] adding
[E.i.] the term,
[E.ii.] the word class, and
[E.iii.] the intra-class probability
to the lexicon of the user.

Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Franz US 6,356,865 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Cohen US 2007/0233487 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Hwang US 7,584,102 B2 Sept. 1, 2009

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–13 and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Cohen and Hwang. Final
Act. 3–9.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 103 rejection of claims 2–13 and 15–19 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Cohen, Hwang, and Franz.
Final Act. 9.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 20 further herein.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only. Date cited is the date of
publication.
Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733

4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. The Appellant’s contentions we
discuss are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.
The Examiner determines:
Regarding claim 1 Cohen teaches A method (abstract:
method) comprising:
. . .
determining a first value of an intra-class probability for
the term, the intra-class probability reflecting a relevance of the
term specific to the user relative to other terms in a lexicon that
belong to the word class (25; 27; 30 probability; 44; 51:
probability);
increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the
first value to a second value based on the indication to add the
term to the lexicon, the increase in the intra-class probability
representing the term being more likely to be used by the user
(27; 30; 44; 55–56).
Final Act. 3–4.
Hwang teaches,
the user’s individual lexicon (abstract; claim 1: user-
specific language model; col 9 l. 8–14: building a language
model related to the user; col 9 l. 61–65), corresponding to the
limitations of:
. . .
increasing the intra-class probability of the term from the
first value to a second value based on the indication from the user
to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon, the increase in
the intra-class probability representing the term being more
Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733

5
likely to be used by the user due to the indication from the user
to add the term to the user’s individual lexicon.
Final Act. 4.
B.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
contends,
The Final Office Action (“Office Action”) dated
January 31, 2019 fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness because the references, whether considered alone or
in combination, do not disclose or suggest “an intra-class
probability” nor “increasing the intra-class probability of the
term from the first value to a second value based on the indication
from the user to add the term to the user's individual lexicon,” as
recited in independent claim[ 1].
Appeal Br. 3–4.
[W]hile Cohen discloses assigning categories, Cohen does not
disclose a probability within one of those categories or
groupings. . . . Appellants [] do not dispute that Cohen describes
that terms can be included in several categories, that the
probabilities of these terms can be increased based on numerous
criteria including frequency of use, current relevancy in media,
location, etc. However, an intra-class probability is not required
to enable these features of Cohen’s model and Cohen does not
disclose a probability within one of those categories or
groupings. Stated formally, an intra-class probability is thus
neither inherently disclosed nor explicitly disclosed. Instead of
an intra-class (within the same word class) probability, the
probability described in Cohen is an inter-class probability that
does not describe a probability of the word within a class P(w|C)
(e.g., to distinguish between words of similar meaning or
function), as claimed.
Appeal Br. 5–6 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733

6
Hwang is silent with respect to the probabilities associated with
the words and any modification of the term frequencies in the
language model based on this addition. Nor does Hwang teach
the more precise modification of an intra-class probability on
this basis as required by the claims. As a result, even when
combined with Cohen there remains no inherent or express
disclosure of a modification of an intra-class probability based
on a user’s addition of a term to the user’s lexicon.
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added).
C.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
D.
The arguments regarding the absence of an “intra-class probability”
from the Cohen and Hwang references are persuasive. Our review of the
rejection on appeal does not find sufficient explanation so as to establish
either Cohen or Hwang discloses or suggests such an intra-class probability.
Therefore, these arguments by Appellant are sufficient to overcome the
rejections.
Appeal 2020-001378
Application 15/694,733

7
We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, that there is
currently insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding
that Cohen or Hwang, alone or in combination, teach, suggest, or otherwise
render obvious the argued limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 15–
19
103 Cohen, Hwang 1–13, 15–
19
14, 20 103 Cohen, Hwang,
Franz
14, 20
Overall
Outcome

1–20

REVERSED