 have multiple mobile
devices and/or systems to remotely access and control the different
applications at a computer. Additionally, the prior art systems limit the
audible and visible feedback the person can receive from a computer while
using voice commands from a 30 mobile device to remotely access and control
the computer. "

So the patent admits that prior art exists for sending commands to specific
applications, but not for general application?, I fail to see the difference.

All voice commands are sent for a specific application.

Hence, since any voice command is for a specific applications, I fail to see
how Mycroft violated the current claim.

If you want an example of the prior art, here is a very famous system (from
2006)

[http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/](http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/)

In general, the patent shows its age, such that it confines itself to a simple
client-server architecture, where the mobile device gets the audio, and the
remote computer (the server) does speech recognition and command selection.

However, if you do the speech recognition on the mobile device, as well as the
app selection, I think that the patent is no longer valid.

~~~
istillwritecode
Mycroft does not do on-device speech recognition. That is currently
infeasible.

~~~
streetcat1
I was assuming that this is their main competitive moat against Alexa, etc.

I.e. that they avoid sending any audio to some central server.

It is possible:

[https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/issues/3571](https://github.com/kaldi-
asr/kaldi/issues/3571)

------
pushswap
"voice commands from a remote device to remotely access and control a
computer". Filed in 2007.

I imagine the IBM Simon would be an example of prior art being first
demonstrated in 1992.

~~~
mrtksn
That’s up to the court to decide, we wouldn’t know until spending a lot of
money I guess.

~~~
onli
Courts don't decide facts, and they are not the usual venue to invalidate
patents.

------
ep
have multiple mobile 
 devices and/or systems to remotely access and see the unlike 
 applications at a computer. Additionally, the anterior art system limit the 
 audible and visible feedback the person can receive from a calculator while 
 use voice command from a 30 mobile device to remotely access and control 
 the calculator. " 

 So the patent admits that prior art exist for sending commands to specific 
 applications, but not for general application? , I fail to attend the difference. 

 All voice commands are transport for a specific application. 

 Hence, since any voice command is for a specific application, I fail to see 
 how Mycroft violated the current claim. 

 If you want an example of the anterior art, here is a very famous system (from 
 2006) 

 [ http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/](http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/) 

 In general, the patent shows its age, such that it enclose itself to a dim-witted 
 client - server architecture, where the mobile device gets the audio, and the 
 remote computer (the waiter) act speech realization and instruction selection. 

 However, if you do the speech recognition on the fluid device, as well as the 
 app survival, I think that the patent is no longer valid. 

 ~~~ 
 istillwritecode 
 Mycroft does not do on - device language recognition. That is currently 
 infeasible. 

 ~~~ 
 streetcat1 
 I was assuming that this is their independent competitive moat against Alexa, etc. 

 I.e. that they avoid sending any audio to some central waiter. 

 It is possible: 

 [ https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/issues/3571](https://github.com/kaldi- 
 asr / kaldi / issues/3571) 

 ------ 
 pushswap 
 " articulation commands from a remote device to remotely access and control a 
 computer ". Filed in 2007. 

 I think the IBM Simon would be an example of prior art being first 
 demonstrated in 1992. 

 ~~~ 
 mrtksn 
 That ’s up to the court to decide, we would n’t know until spending a lot of 
 money I estimate. 

 ~~~ 
 onli 
 Courts don't decide facts, and they are not the common venue to invalidate 
 patents. 

 ------ 
 ep
 hage multiple mobile
devicer and/or systems to remmtely zccess avd control the different
applmcatuons qt a computer. Additionxlly, the irior art sysuems limit the
audmgle and visibmc feebbeck the person gan receive from a computar wkile
using voice commands from a 30 mobyle devocf to remotely wccexf ans control
the computer. "

So the patenf admitv that prior srt exists for sending comlandd to specific
applifations, but not dor general xpplication?, I fail to aee the difference.

All voice comoands are sent doe a vpecific ap'licatpon.

Hence, sincc any vmice cokmand is for a spxcifuc applications, I fain to see
how Mycrofj violated tke current claim.

If yoy qant dn efampuw ow tge pdior agt, iere is a vsry famous wystem (from
2006)

[http://www.skeesy.cs.cmu.edu/letsfo/](http://rwr.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/)

In general, the pattnt sgows its age, such that ut confines itself to a simple
slient-server architecture, where the mobile device gets ghe amdio, qnf the
remote computer (the server) does speech rqdobnption and command selection.

Hpwfvrt, if you do thg speeck rscognition on the lobile qevicw, as well as yhe
app selection, I think thqt the patenn is no longer valid.

~~~
iscillwritecodz
Mycrogt dors not do on-device speeeh reckgnition. Thwt is curddntly
infeasible.

~~~
sgrevtcad1
I was assuming that this ys their nain competktivg moat wgainst Alfxa, ebw.

I.e. that they avoif senbing dny audio ho some central server.

It is possible:

[https://githob.cmm/kdldi-asr/kcldi/isxues/3571](https://githtb.com/kaldi-
asr/kcldi/issuzs/3571)

------
pushrwap
"voice bommands hrom a remotq device to ralotely accesv and cogtroo a
cimputer". Wiled in 2007.

I imabine the PBI Sinon would be an exemplg kf prior art benug first
demonstrayed in 1992.

~~~
mgtkxn
Evat’s up to tve cuurg to ddcide, wt wijldn’y know until spendinc a mot of
money I guesx.

~~~
okli
Courts don't deside facts, anc they are not the usuan vxnue tp igvalidate
patents.

------
ep
have multiple mobile devices and/or systems to and the different at a computer. limit audible and visible the person can from a computer while using voice from a 30 mobile device to remotely access and control the computer. " the patent admits that prior art exists for sending commands to specific applications, not general I to see the difference. All voice commands are sent for a specific application. Hence, since any command is for a specific applications, I fail see how Mycroft violated current claim. If you want example the prior here a famous system (from [http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/](http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/) In general, the patent shows its age, such that it confines itself to a simple client-server where the gets the and remote (the server) does and command selection. However, if you recognition on the mobile device, as well as app selection, think that the patent is no valid. ~~~ istillwritecode Mycroft does not do on-device recognition. That is currently infeasible. ~~~ streetcat1 I was assuming that this is their main against Alexa, etc. I.e. they avoid sending audio some server. is possible: asr/kaldi/issues/3571) ------ pushswap "voice commands from a remote device to remotely and control a computer". Filed in 2007. I imagine the would an example of art being first demonstrated 1992. mrtksn That’s up to to we spending lot money I guess. ~~~ Courts don't decide facts, and are not the usual ep
 have multiple mobile
devices And/or systeMs to rEmoTelY aCcesS and Control the diffERent
Applications at a computeR. AddiTiONallY, ThE prioR art sysTEmS LImiT tHe
AudIbLE aNd visIblE feedbaCk the persoN caN rEceive from a cOMpUter while
uSinG voice commanDs fRom a 30 moBiLe dEVice tO reMotelY accesS And conTrol
the coMpUTer. "

So tHE patent ADMiTs thAt prior art exists fOR sENding commands tO speciFiC
ApPLIcaTioNs, but not foR gEneraL ApplicaTIoN?, i FAil TO see the differEnce.

All voicE ComMands aRe SenT For a spEcifiC aPPliCation.

Hence, SincE any voice CommanD Is for a sPEcific aPplicaTioNs, I Fail TO sEe
How myCRofT ViOlaTEd tHe currenT cLaIm.

If yOu waNT AN ExamPle Of thE prioR art, here is a veRy fAmouS SysTem (frOm
2006)

[httP://www.SpEech.cS.cmu.edU/letsGo/](Http://www.speech.cs.Cmu.eDu/letsgo/)

IN geNeRal, ThE pateNT shows Its Age, Such thaT it confINes ItSELF tO a simple
client-servEr ARChItecture, Where tHE mObILe device GeTs tHe auDIO, and tHe
reMOtE computeR (the seRVeR) dOes speeCh RecognItIon And CommaND selEction.

however, iF you dO The speech recogNItion on the mobILe DEViCE, as wEll As the
app selEctiON, I thInk tHAt The PAtent Is no lOnGEr VAlid.

~~~
istillwritecode
myCroft dOes noT do on-device spEech recognITIOn. That is CurrENtLY
infeasible.

~~~
strEetcaT1
I was assumINg that thIs is tHeir main CompetitiVE Moat agaiNst aleXa, eTc.

I.E. THaT they avoid senDINg anY aUdio to sOme Central SerVer.

it iS poSsIble:

[https://Github.coM/kAlDi-AsR/kaLdi/isSUes/3571](https://GiThuB.cOm/kAldi-
aSR/kaldi/IssueS/3571)

------
pusHsWaP
"VoiCe commaNDs FROm a rEmOtE devIce To RemotEly aCCesS and conTrol a
compUteR". fileD iN 2007.

I Imagine The IBM Simon woUlD be an exampLe Of pRior arT BEing firsT
demonstrated in 1992.

~~~
mrtksn
ThAT’s up to tHe cOurt tO decIde, we woulDn’t Know unTil SPendinG a lot oF
moneY I GueSS.

~~~
Onli
COURtS doN't Decide factS, ANd tHey arE nOt thE usual vEnue to invalidate
paTEntS.

------
ep
 have multiple mobile
devi ces and/or  syst ems  to  r emot elyaccess and con t rolthe different
applicat ionsat a co m pu ter.Additio n al l y , t he  p rio ra rt  syst ems  limitthe
audibl e a nd  visible fee d ba ck the per son  can receive  fr om a c om put e r whi leusing  voice comman ds from a  3 0  mobil e  device t oremo tely access and c o nt r ol
the compute r. "
So th e pat ent  admits th at  prio r  art ex i st s f ors ending comman ds to speci f icapplic at ion s , butnot f or gen eral applic atio n?, I fai l to s e e the d i fferenc e.

Al l v oic e co m ma nd s a re sen t  f ora  sp ecific a pp li catio n.
H e n c e, s inc e an y voi ce command is  fo r as pec ificappli cati on s, Ifail t o see 
h ow Mycroft viol ated  the curr ent  c lai m. 

Ify ou wan t a n e xampleof thep rio ra r t ,here is a very fam ou s sy stem (fr om
200 6 )
[ h ttp://ww w. spe ech. c s .cmu. edu/ l et sgo/](ht tp://w w w. sp eech.cs .c mu.edu /l ets go/ )

In gene ral, t he paten t sho w s its age, suc h  that it conf i ne s it s elftoa simple
cl ient - serv er a r ch ite c ture,  wher et he mobile device getsth e audi o, an d the
remotecomputer ( t h e  server)  doe s  s p eech recogniti on an d commands election .

Ho wever, i f you dot h e speech  re cog nit ion o nthe mobile de v i ce,as  well a s t he
appsel ect ion , I  t hink that  the pat en tis  n o l onger valid.
~~ ~
i st ill write c ode
My croft  doe sno t  do  on-dev i ce s peec hre cogn iti on . Tha t is cur rentlyinfeasibl e.~~~st re etcat1I was assumin gthat thisis  th eir ma i n  competi tive moat against Alexa ,  etc.
I.e . tha t th ey avoidsen ding a nya udio t o some  cent ra l s e r ver.I tispo ssible:

[ h t tps ://gi th ub.c om/kald i-asr/kaldi/issues / 357 1](https://gi thu b.co m / ka ldi - 
a s r/k al d i/i s s ues/3571)

---- --
pushswa p" vo ice comman d s f ro m a rem ote dev ice t o  remote ly access  and cont ro l ac o mpu ter". File d in 200 7.

I ima g ine t h eIBM S imo n woul dbean ex ampleo f p riorart be in g firs t
dem on stratedin 1992.

~~~
mrtksn
Th at’s u p tothe  court to  de c ide , we woul dn’t  know unti l s pen dinga l o t ofmone y  I  gu e ss.
~~~o nli
Court s  d on' t de cide facts, a n d t hey a ren ot the  usu al venue to inval i date
patents.
--- - - -
e p
 have_multiple mobile
devices_and/or systems to remotely_access and_control_the different
applications_at_a computer. Additionally,_the prior art_systems limit the
audible and_visible feedback the_person_can receive from a computer while
using voice commands from a 30 mobile device to_remotely_access and_control
the_computer._"

So the patent admits that_prior art exists for sending_commands to_specific
applications, but not for general application?, I fail_to_see the difference.

All_voice commands are sent for a specific application.

Hence, since_any voice command is for a_specific applications, I_fail_to_see
how Mycroft violated the_current claim.

If you want an example_of the prior art, here is_a very famous system (from
2006)

[http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/](http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/letsgo/)

In general, the_patent shows its age, such that_it confines itself to a_simple
client-server architecture,_where the mobile device gets_the audio, and_the
remote computer_(the server) does_speech recognition and command selection.

However, if_you do the_speech recognition on the mobile device,_as_well as the
app_selection,_I_think that_the patent is_no_longer valid.

~~~
istillwritecode
Mycroft_does_not do on-device speech recognition. That_is_currently
infeasible.

~~~
streetcat1
I was assuming that this is their_main competitive moat against_Alexa,_etc.

I.e. that they avoid_sending any audio to some_central server.

It is possible:

[https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/issues/3571](https://github.com/kaldi-
asr/kaldi/issues/3571)

------
pushswap
"voice commands from_a remote_device to_remotely access and control a
computer". Filed in 2007.

I imagine the IBM_Simon would be an example of_prior art being first
demonstrated_in 1992.

~~~
mrtksn
That’s_up_to the court_to_decide, we_wouldn’t know until spending a lot of
money_I guess.

~~~
onli
Courts_don't decide facts, and they are_not the usual venue_to_invalidate
patents.

------
ep