Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
Assuming that the Examiner intended for the claimed “predicted
value” to correspond to the single feature vector 76 obtained via the
mapping process shown in Figure 6, we fail to see how this vector uses an
articulatory dynamics value that depends on an articulatory dynamics value
at a previous time and an articulation target, as claimed. At best, this single
feature vector is based, at least in part, on two predefined parameters: (1)
the eight predefined articulatory parameters, and (2) the six predefined
spectral classes (and two null classes) forming the basis for class distinction
matrix 62.
Although we find that these eight predetermined articulatory
parameters or six spectral classes (and two null classes) can be broadly
considered “articulatory dynamics values at a previous time,” the Examiner
has still failed to identify -- nor can we reasonably ascertain -- how the
predicted value (i.e., the single feature vector) also depends on an
articulation target as claimed. In fact, the Examiner did not identify an
“articulation target” at all, let alone the recited dependence on such a target.7
Although Hutchins does indicate that the articulatory parameter values
of the feature vector are visually inspected on a display (Hutchins, col. 17, ll.
39-50; Figs. 7-8) which would suggest a “target” application (i.e., an
“articulation target”) for the “predicted value,” we still fail to see how the
predicted value depends on such a target. To the contrary, the target
application would depend on the predicted value under this interpretation.
7 Appellant, too, noted that the Examiner failed to identify the articulation
target in a claim comparison chart in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br., at 3
(noting that the Examiner cited no language from Hutchins corresponding to
the recited “articulation target” limitation).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013