Ex parte ASHBY et al. - Page 9

          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.                     
               The rejection of Claims 1-18 is sustained.  The rejection of           
          Claims 19-21 is not sustained.  The rejection of Claim 22 is not            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007