Appeal No. 1998-2936
Application No. 08/665,590
time. This argument is not persuasive because it is not supported by the express
language of claim 16.
Appellants argue that there is no disclosure or suggestion in Burke or Gerson of
replacing the data packets in Burke with audio voice information and having the base
station use voice recognition to complete placement of the call. (See brief at pages
5-6.) This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 16. The language of claim 16 does not recite where the voice recognition is carried
out wherein the audio voice information may be any analog or digital representation of the
spoken utterances. Appellants argue that the radio terminal has insufficient power and
processing to perform speech recognition and that is why the speech recognition is
performed at the base station. (See brief at page 6.) The language of claim 16 recites no
details of the audio voice information. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive since
there is no basis in the language of the claim to support this argument. Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claim 17 which has not been argued
separately.
With respect to claims 18-20, appellants argue that the portion of Reed cited by the
examiner does not teach “a fully completed initiating step (signaling information
exchange).” We disagree with appellants whereas all signaling exchange would have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007