TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

2019002226 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
15/234,375 08/11/2016 Bozhao Tan TI-74304A 7823
23494 7590 05/13/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZGONZALE, LENNIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOZHAO TAN
Appeal 2019-002226
Application 15/234,375
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13.2 See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In an Amendment After Final filed May 11, 2018, Appellant cancelled
claims 4–6, 8, 10–12, and 14–18, and the Amendment was entered by the
Examiner in the Advisory Action dated May 30, 2018.
Appeal 2019-002226
Application 15/234,375
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods for training and operating a
speaker dependent sound recognition sensor. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for training a speaker dependent sound recognition
sensor, the method comprising:
receiving an analog signal that contains a command sound
spoken by a user of the sound recognition sensor;
extracting sparse sound parameter information from the
analog signal using an analog portion of the sound recognition
sensor to form a user dependent sound vector representing an
entire word or multiword phrase; and
storing the speaker dependent sound vector in a sound
signature database coupled to the sound recognition sensor,
whereby the user dependent sound vector is provided to the
sound recognition sensor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Parthasarathy US 5,913,192 June 15, 1999
Rajasekaran US 4,780,906 Oct. 25, 1988

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE ON APPEAL
Claims 1–2, 7, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Parthasarathy and Rajasekaran. Final Act. 3.3

3 Because Appellant has cancelled claims 4–6, 8, 10–12, and 14–18 after the
Final Rejection and the Amendment was entered by the Examiner, we
address only those claims currently pending in this appeal, i.e., claims 1–3,
7, 9, and 13. See Appeal Br. 13–15.
Appeal 2019-002226
Application 15/234,375
3
OPINION
We begin by noting that Parthasarathy is directed to speaker
identification using speech recognition. See Parthasarathy, Abstract, 3:35–
45, 4:35–53. Rajasekaran is directed to word recognition. See Rajasekaran,
Abstract.
The Examiner finds Parthasarathy teaches most of the limitations of
claim 1, findings which Appellant does not dispute in the briefs. Final Act.
3–5; Appeal Br. 4–11. The Examiner relies on Rajasekaran to teach
extracting sound parameter information from an analog signal using an
analog portion of the sound recognition sensor, a finding which Appellant
also does not dispute. Id.
Appellant argues that “the Examiner has provided nothing more than
conclusory allegations, without citing documentary evidence of record to
affirmatively prove that a person having ordinary skill in the art” would have
been motivated to combine Rajasekaran and Parthasarathy. Appeal Br. 4, 7.
In particular, Appellant argues that “[i]n deciding obviousness and
motivation to combine, MPEP § 2142 requires that knowledge of
Appellant's disclosure must be put aside, yet the Examiner's alleged
motivation for combining Parthasarathy and Rajasekaran seems based upon
Appellant’s own disclosure.” Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner concludes:
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of Parthasarathy '192 to include the limitations as taught by
Rajasekaran '906 because a low pass filter with a corner frequency of
6.25 KHz to reject out of band signals may be employed in
conjunction with an analog differentiator, wherein the differentiator
effectively emphasizes the high frequency components in the input
analog speech signal (column 5, line 65 through column 6, line 2),
Appeal 2019-002226
Application 15/234,375
4
thus making the use of an analog portion to extract sound a more
desirable and effective tool.

Final Act. 4, 5. The Examiner explains that it would be obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Parthasarathy to include extracting an
analog sound parameter extracting form instead of a digital sound parameter,
because by using the extraction for the analog speech signal, a better
characteristic of the samples of the individual words can be obtained “for
performing a better speech processing and effectively analyzing the signal.”
Id. at 2, 3. “Thus, with this it is clear that the use of an analog portion to
extract a sound would be more desirable and a more effective tool in the
extraction or sound.” Ans. 4, 5. “The examiner has used the prior art
teachings to form a motivation to combine,” “therefore the allegations of
using applicant’s own disclosure are believed to not be founded.” Id.
Upon review of the record, we do not discern a reliance on
Appellant’s own disclosure as a reason provided by the Examiner for
combining the references, contrary to Appellant’s argument. However, on
this record, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding In re
NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, we agree
with Appellant that on this record, the Examiner concludes that one skilled
in the art would have been motivated to combine Parthasarathy and
Rajasekaran because of Rajasekaran’s “low pass filter with a corner
frequency of 6.25 KHz to reject out of band signals” that may be used in
conjunction with an analog differentiator. Ans. 3–4; Final Act 4–5. This
conclusion is not sufficiently explained on this record as it relates to the
claimed invention.
Appeal 2019-002226
Application 15/234,375
5
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under § 103. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 7 and 13 or dependent claims 2, 3, and 9 under § 103.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome:
103 Parthasarathy,
Rajasekaran
1–3, 7, 9,
13

REVERSED