Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
Appellant argues the examiner has not provided a teaching or convincing line of
reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to use the input command as both the command recognition and the identity
verification. (See brief at page 4 et seq.) We agree with appellant. Appellant argues that
Naik ‘720 is concerned with access security and is not concerned with command
recognition while Dowden is concerned with command recognition and not security in
accessing the system. (See brief at pages 5-6.) We agree with appellant. Appellant
argues that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning or motivation to
combine the parts of the claimed invention which the examiner has assembled. Id. We
agree with appellant. Appellant argues that the skilled artisan would not have been able to
make the invention as claimed from the applied references “without hindsight knowledge of
the claimed invention.” (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellant.
The examiner argues that:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to forego the use of a secret phrase (and thereby
forego one level of security) and utilize the system commands (as taught by
Dowden) as the phrase to be processed in the voice verification
system because such a modification would permit the user to access the
system in a faster, easier manner (no password required prior to entering a
system command) while still maintaining security by verifying the identity of
the purported user.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007