Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
For this reason alone, the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of
anticipation of claim 1 based on Hutchins.
Nevertheless, we do agree with the Examiner regarding the other
recited limitations. The Examiner indicates that the claimed “observed
value” corresponds to “phoneme that are observed” and that the claimed
“comparing” limitation reads on “mapping” (Answer 6). As best we can
understand, the Examiner appears to take the position that the mapping
process outlined in Figure 6 -- a process that ultimately maps samples of
received speech (an “observed value”) into eight articulatory parameters
represented by the singe feature vector 76 (the “predicted value”) --
inherently involves comparing the observed and predicted values.
We agree with this position. At least at a fundamental level, mapping
one value into another necessarily requires comparing the respective values.8
At a minimum, a comparison is needed to make logical connections between
the entities involved in the mapping process (e.g., identify and distinguish
the source and target entities, etc.).
We further note that the single feature vector 76 (“predicted value”)
in Hutchins is based in part on the normalized probability class vector 68.
Thus, the values constituting the single feature vector, in effect, are
determined by the likelihood that a particular speech segment falls within a
certain class. Therefore, Hutchins’ mapping process, in effect, compares
observed values with predicted values -- a process that also determines a
likelihood that a particular speech segment falls within a certain class.
8 The term “map” is defined in pertinent part as “[t]o make logical
connections between two entities.” See Webopedia (Internet.com), at
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/m/map.html (last visited Aug. 30, 2007).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013