Appeal No. 96-0308
Application No. 07/854,192
According to the examiner, Dittakavi inherently contains the
recited recording means in that his bar code represents speech.
Final Rejection (Paper No. 13) at 6, lines 14-20. We disagree.
Dittakavi’s apparatus does not inherently include a voice
recorder capable of recording a vocal message as voice input.
Dittakavi’s apparatus has no need for vocal input because the
voice of the message sender is not reproduced. All that
Dittakavi needs to create synthetic speech output is written bar
codes representing allophones. The code is not specific to a
particular voice. There is no teaching of or reason for creating
Dittakavi’s written code from voice input as opposed to creating
it from written input.
Dittakavi’s speech synthesizer may contain a prerecorded
sound for each letter of the alphabet. However, such a
prerecorded sound is not a vocal message recorded by the
instructional apparatus as voice input.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of Claim 22.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-18 is sustained. The rejection of
Claims 19-21 is not sustained. The rejection of Claim 22 is not
sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007