Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2020

14745002 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2020)

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.
14/745,002 06/19/2015 Rod D. Waltermann RPS920150015USNP(710.440) 3467
58127 7590 03/26/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
PHAM, THIERRY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2020 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 ROD D. WALTERMANN, HERMANN FRANZ BURGMEIER,
and ANTOINE ROLAND RAUX
____________

Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–6, 9–16, and 18–20. Appeal Br. 17.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2018, “Appeal Br.”); the Reply
Brief (filed November 19, 2018, “Reply. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed September 19, 2018, “Ans.”); the Final Action (mailed January 11,
2018, “Final Act.”); and the Specification (filed June 19, 2015, “Spec.”) for
their respective details.
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The claims relate to embodiments that address problems relating to
the accuracy of voice recognition systems. Appeal Br. 5.
Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br. 5. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
representative3 Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting
added:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at an audio receiver, user voice data from a
user;
identifying, using a processor, at least one characteristic
of the voice data;
determining, based upon the identified at least one
characteristic, an emotional state of the user;
obtaining, using the processor, a speech recognition
processing result of the voice data, wherein the speech
recognition processing result is based upon the emotional state
of the user; and
changing a standard response by an application to the
user voice data to an adapted response based on the emotional
state of the user and the speech recognition processing result,
wherein the changing to an adapted response comprises
modifying a functionality associated with the standard response
based upon the emotional state of the user.

3 See Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

3

REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
References
Name Publication Number Date
Orbach US 2004/0215453 A1 Oct. 28, 2004
Fay US 2015/0310865 A1 Priority May 12, 2011

Rejections4
Claims 1–6, 9–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fay and Orbach. Final Act. 2–4.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–6, 9–16, and 18–20 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded
that Appellant identifies reversible error. We consider Appellant’s
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6–8;
and in the Reply Brief, pages 3–6.

CLAIMS 1–6, 9–16, AND 18–20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER FAY AND ORBACH.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
changing a standard response by an application to the user voice
data to an adapted response based on the emotional state of the
user and the speech recognition processing result, wherein the

4 The Application is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file
provisions. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

4
changing to an adapted response comprises modifying a
functionality associated with the standard response based upon
the emotional state of the user.
Independent Claims 11 and 20 contain commensurate recitations.
Appellant contends “one skilled in the art would not combine the
teachings [of] Fay with Orbach because those combined teachings would not
result in the claimed limitations.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues Fay and
Orbach are directed to two different sections or portions of a voice
recognition system because Fay “changes the usability of a voice prompt
system based upon the expertise of a person in navigating the voice tree
system.” Appeal Br. 19 (citing Fay ¶ 24). Whereas “Orbach teaches a
system that selects voice response sets.” Id. 18 (quoting Orbach ¶ 20)
(“a communicant who is determined to be in a stressed mental state may be
provided with verbal responses from a voice response set that contains
soothing tones”).
Applicant contends “neither reference teaches, or suggests, ‘changing
a standard response by an application to the user voice data to an adapted
response based on the emotional state of the user and the speech recognition
processing result,” as recited in Claim 1. Appeal Br. 23. The Examiner
agrees that Fay does not so teach. Final Act. 3 (“Fay fails to expressly teach
and/or suggest changing a standard voice response based upon emotional
state of the user”). The Examiner finds Orbach so teaches. Id.
The Answer reproduces ¶¶ 7, 9, 20, 21, 26, 27 of Fay and ¶ 20 of
Orbach. See Ans. 5–10. However, the Answer fails to map these
disclosures to the disputed limitations of Claim 1. Moreover, the citations to
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

5
Fay are irrelevant in view of the Examiner’s finding that “Fay fails to
expressly teach and/or suggest changing a standard voice response based
upon emotional state of the user.” Final Act. 3. Orbach discloses: “a
communicant who is determined to be in a stressed mental state may be
provided with verbal responses from a voice response set that contains
soothing tones.” Orbach ¶ 20 (quoted by the Examiner).
Claim Construction
We first construe the claims. Claim construction is an important step
in a patentability determination. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d
928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness
under § 103 are two-step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a
proper construction of the claims. . . . The second step in the analyses
requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.”
(internal citations omitted)). A determination of anticipation, as well as
obviousness, involves two steps. First is construing the claim, a question of
law, followed by, in the case of anticipation or obviousness, a comparison of
the construed claim to the prior art. This comparison process involves fact-
finding. See Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed.
Cir. 1998).
Appellant and the Examiner differ in their interpretation of the
claimed “functionality.” The MPEP makes clear that the intrinsic record
(e.g., the specification) must be consulted to identify which of the different
possible definitions is most consistent with the invention’s use of the terms.
See MPEP §2111.01 (III) quoting Brookhill-Wilk 1, 334 F.3d 1294, 1300
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

6
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Where there are several common meanings for a claim
term, the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings
and toward the proper meanings.”).
Appellant contends: “[t]he independent claims are directed to
embodiments that address problems relating to ‘the accuracy of the voice
recognition systems’.” Reply Br. 6 (quoting Spec. ¶ 2). Appellant discloses:
[a]n embodiment improves the accuracy of voice recognition systems
in terms of how the voice input data is used to perform certain actions. For
example, when users from a wide variety of backgrounds speak to a system
for a wide variety of purposes (dictation, commands, search queries, etc.),
the user’s expected result may differ, even if the literal transcription of the
words is the same.
Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 15).
[a]n embodiment uses processing applied to the voice data in order to
identify or determine one or more voice characteristics of the user’s speech.
Using the voice characteristic(s), differential processing of the voice data,
along with access to other data sources (e.g., contextual data) is applied such
that the result of the voice data processing matches the user’s original intent
more closely.
Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 16).
Thus, once the voice data is received at 310, voice characteristics are
detected at 320, which could, depending on predetermined threshold levels,
be interpreted to alter or modify the plain meaning of the voice input
received at 310.
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

7
Reply Br. 7 (quoting Spec. ¶ 31).
As such, an embodiment may process the same voice data to be a
request or query to search rather than dictation input, given the different
speech characteristics. Those skilled in the art will recognize that the intents
discussed above are non-limiting in nature and that various other user intents
are possible (e.g., demands, statements, complaints, communication
requests, etc.).
Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 32).
In an embodiment, this data can be combined with additional data that
permit context inferences, such as location data (e.g., current or destination),
calendar data (e.g., present and upcoming), data regarding open applications,
active presentations, etc., to further enhance prediction(s) made at 340
regarding how the voice data should be processed.
Reply Br. 8 (quoting Spec. ¶ 34).
[t]he combination of the plain word meaning and the contextual
characteristics of the voice data and/or other contextual data provide a way
for a device to react in a more natural way. This allows the application or
agent to infer if the user is experiencing a certain emotional state (e.g., upset,
stressed, happy, anxious, etc.) which can be leveraged to assist with words,
phrases or functionality that a typical speech to text recognition tool might
struggle with.
Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 35).
an embodiment provides a method of receiving a user’s voice data,
analyzing the voice data to detect characteristic(s) of that voice data such as
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

8
pitch, volume, and tempo, etc., and to determine if the processing of the
voice data (e.g., the selection of a grammar to process the voice data and/or
functionality such as response thereto) should be altered or adapted given the
detected characteristic(s).
Reply Br. 9 (quoting Spec. ¶ 38).
Appellant construes the claims, with specific reference to
specification disclosure, such that the disputed limitation recited in Claim 1
relates to a change in the function of the system depending on the user’s
voice characteristics. E.g., “the user’s expected result may differ, even if the
literal transcription of the words is the same.” Spec. ¶ 15. The Examiner
finds Orbach, but not Fay, teaches modifying a standard response based on
the emotional state of the user. Ans. 9. In contrast to Appellant’s
construction, the Examiner’s construction of the claimed “modifying a
functionality,” relies upon the prior art, Orbach, but does not refer to
Appellant’s Specification. See Ans. 9–10. “Above all, the broadest
reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims and
specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF,
LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).
The Examiner finds Orbach teaches the disputed limitation by
disclosing: “a communicant who is determined to be in a stressed mental
state may be provided with verbal responses from a voice response set that
contains soothing tones.” Ans. 10 (quoting Orbach ¶ 20). However, the
Examiner fails to find how speaking to a “stressed” user in “soothing tones,”
teaches a “functionality such as [a] response [to a user’s voice data] should
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

9
be altered or adapted.” See Spec. ¶ 38. Appellant discloses: “differential
processing of the voice data, along with access to other data sources (e.g.,
contextual data) is applied such that the result of the voice data processing
matches the user’s original intent more closely.” Spec. ¶ 16. There has been
no showing that the user intended that the voice assistant speak in any
particular voice. We find modifying the tone of the computer “voice” is not
a proper construction of “modifying a functionality” as recited in Claim 1.
See In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–50 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (vacating Board decision due to Board’s unreasonably broad claim
interpretation).
The disputed limitation of Claim 1 recites: “wherein the changing to
an adapted response comprises modifying a functionality associated with the
standard response based upon the emotional state of the user.” Appellant
discloses:
By way of example, if a user is stressed about his or her next
meeting, and asks “Where is that file I need to present,” while
the user did not explicitly state that this is for an upcoming
meeting, an embodiment may take into account a voice
characteristic indicative of stress or urgency, and therefore
choose to access calendar entries in the near future that may
include the user. This would use the fact that the user is asking
for data with a stressful tone, and may be frustrated already, so
an embodiment infers information, rather than adding to the
stress by asking additional questions. As such, the processing
of the voice data is altered by detecting a voice characteristic of
the voice input, yielding a different response to the user’s
query.
Spec. ¶ 18.
Appeal 2019-001320
Application 14/745,002

10
We find that speaking to the user in a soothing tone, as taught by
Orbach, does not “yield a different response to the user’s query.”
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not shown persuasively that the
combination of Fay and Orbach teaches “modifying a functionality
associated with the standard response based upon the emotional state of the
user,” as recited in Claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1–6, 9–16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION5

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–16,
18–20
103 Fay, Orbach -- 1–6, 9–16,
18–20

REVERSED

5 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
discussed herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).