decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
2001 Didn't disclose the algorithms that ran HAL or vice versa | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
2001 Didn't disclose the algorithms that ran HAL or vice versa
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
It depends on the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and upon
where the novelty lies.

If one of ordinary skill would understand how to implement each of those steps,
and if those steps have never been combined in that way before then it is
probably enough.

Since you were able to rattle them off like that, I suspect they are not new and
that the novelty would have to lie in the details of a particular implementation
of at least one of those steps. In that case, more would be required and the
claims would have to be more specific.

Also, Hal did more than just parse phonemes...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

2001 Didn't disclose the algorithms that ran HAL or vice versa
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
To me, you provided a sketch of an algorithm for voice recognition. The
function-interface you describe takes recorded audio as input and has as output
either a transcription of the utterance or a message that should be presented to
the user, followed by processing the next utterance.

But you went further, and (barely) started to describe the algorithm: raw audio
-> phonetic parsing -> assemble words -> disambiguate using semantics
-> prompt if too ambiguous. But accomplishing these steps in speech
recognition are highly nontrivial. Someone skilled in the art of speech rec
would know at least the canonical implementation involving creating acoustic and
language models (for phonetic and semantic parsing respectively) and would
create a decoder that uses those data structures.

I'd hope that any patent in this area would show specifically where the
innovation is, what new data structures and sequences of steps on those data
structures were invented. In other words, present details of the secret sauce.

Then it would have to be non-obvious to practicioners and original.

Also note that providing this _appropriate_ level of detail for a patent (data
structures and the sequence of operations on the data structures) looks
suspiciously like math.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )