Appeal No. 2005-2619
Application No. 09/734,826
of adjusting in the event of deviations. (Brief at page 7). We disagree with appellant and
find that Uehara discloses that the servo-mechanism 14 operates to adjust the direction
of the microphone 12 within a range which covers the voice input area B. While Uehara
suggests movement of the microphone to the singular position of the mouth, we find
that this position would have to be within a range of tolerance which would be set by the
limitations of the servo-mechanism that drives and sets the position. Otherwise, the
servo system may never be able to achieve the actual calculated position. Therefore,
we find there to be a nominal range around every value for the physical constraints of
the mechanical systems. Additionally, the examiner has identified the picture
processing as shown in Figure 3 of Uehara as identifying transition points which would
identify a range for the mouth between the neck/chin and the nose luminances. (Answer
at pages 5 and 12-13). Here, we find this to also be positional determination which
would then require adjustment of the directional microphone if the range was not a
match to that of the microphone at that time. Therefore, we do not find the argument
persuasive. Appellant argues that the examiner is trying to bypass the troublesome
claim limitations. (Brief at page 7). We disagree and find that the examiner has
identified how the combination would have taught and fairly suggested the invention as
recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive.
Appellant argues that it is not clear how Schaffrina can be fairly said to teach
detachment of the Uehara microphone from its tilting servo mechanism and moved into
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007