Ex Parte DEJACO et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0847                                                        
          Application No. 09/246,412                                                  


                    monitoring the speech recognizer for success of the               
                    first operation.                                                  
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Spoltman et al. (Spoltman)      5,715,369           Feb.  3, 1998           
          Hirayama                        5,854,999           Dec. 29, 1998           
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method and              
          device for testing and training a speech recognizer, i.e., a                
          speech-enabled device such as a wireless telephone.  The method             
          entails storing a plurality of voiced utterances, e.g., spoken              
          words, receiving a prompt from the speech recognizer for a first            
          operation, responding to the prompt with a first selection,                 
          providing audio input to the speech recognizer corresponding to             
          the first selection, and monitoring the recognizer for success of           
          the first operation.  According to the present specification,               
          many speech recognition products in the art undergo limited                 
          testing prior to extensive testing in the marketplace by                    
          consumers and, therefore, "there is a need for a low-cost,                  
          repeatable, non-intrusive testing paradigm for testing and                  
          improving speech-enabled products and speech-enabled services"              
          (page 3 of specification, first paragraph).                                 
               Appealed claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-28 and 30 stand rejected                
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spoltman in             


                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007