Appeal No. 2005-0743
Application No. 09/351,723
claims 25 and 32 as “speaker independent speech recognition.”
The examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 7 and 8 of the answer
make reference to the substance of the comments at page 2 of the
Advisory Action, mailed on April 17, 2003. Here, the examiner
characterizes the term “voice recognition” as denoted by determining who
is doing the speaking, whereas ”speech recognition” denotes identification
of what a speaker is saying.
In reversing the rejection of claims 25 and 32, we agree with
appellants’ views expressed at pages 14-16 of the principal brief on appeal.
Appellants’ characterization of “voice recognition” in independent claims
23 and 30 is consistent with the manner in which the term is used in the
specification as filed. The approach claimed and the principal approach
taught in the specification as filed is to initially identify users based upon
voice recognition software and then to narrow the initial general class of
potential users to a reasonable number which is in turn further modified
with other information to particularize to an individual user. The approach
does not necessarily require the use of content recognition or speech
recognition software as argued by the examiner, but voice recognition
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007