Appeal No. 2005-0743
Application No. 09/351,723
unpatentable over Schier further in view of well-known prior art.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants’ and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief and reply brief for the appellants’ positions,
and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We reverse both stated rejections of the respective claims on appeal.
We reverse the rejection of claims 25 and 32 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Independent claims 23 and 30, the parent
claims to dependent claims 25 and 32, recite a feature of voice recognition
which is more particularly recited in these respective dependent claims as
comprising “speaker independent voice recognition.”
The examiner takes the view at page 3 of the answer that voice
recognition involves recognition of particular characteristics of a person’s
utterances, whereas speaker independent speech recognition does not
recognize particular characteristics of a person’s utterances. The examiner
considers speaker independent voice recognition as being inapplicably
recited in the two rejected claims and intends to interpret the feature of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007