Appeal No. 08/911,596
Application No. 2001-2049
Finally, with regard to claims 1-4, 6-33 and 41, we also
will not sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
103. The examiner adds Microsoft to the combination of Greiner
and Voice Type but it appears that Microsoft is employed only to
show the notoriety of CPUs, memory and to define terms. However,
neither Voice Type nor Microsoft provides for the deficiencies
noted supra with regard to claims 5 and 34.
While the various independent claims vary slightly in scope,
each has at least one limitation not shown by the examiner to be
disclosed or suggested by the applied references.
Claims 14, 20 and 23 recite receiving a first plurality of
user input signals and translating them to a first plurality of
translated data values. While this, alone, may be met by a
keyboard, the claim goes on to recite that the first plurality of
translated data values are stored in a first portion of a memory
with predetermined storage space. Further, similar to the
limitation in claim 5, in response to a remaining portion of the
predetermined storage space of the memory, a presentation of an
indicator is modified. The examiner relies on inherency of text
editing to provide memory for storing text and refers to page 54
of Voice Type for the storage of translated data in memory, on
the keyboard in Microsoft for the teaching of translation of user
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007