Appeal No. 95-4221 Page 3
Application No. 08/086,569
representative of a sentence or phrase in the input
speech signal as a recognition result (19:1-68).
DISCUSSION
A claim is anticipated under subsection 102(e) when the
reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation
in the claim. We agree with the examiner that Appellants'
claimed subject matter and the Bahl reference address a
similar problem in a similar technology and, consequently,
share many similar features. We agree with Appellants,
however, that Bahl does not disclose all elements of their
claims.
Appellants' method predicts a next phoneme based on a
currently verified phoneme and a state table representing a
grammar, and then verifies the prediction against a
statistical model of the next phoneme actually received. The
progression from prediction to verification is common to all
of Appellants' claims. We do not find the claimed progression
in Bahl.
The examiner relies on two portions of Bahl to teach the
prediction step or function. The first portion (8:1-31)
describes Bahl's verification process using the language
model 1010. We cannot reasonably construe Appellants' phoneme
prediction step to read on phoneme verification in Bahl's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007