Appeal No. 97-0438
Application No. 08/250,433
OPINION
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 3) that Sanada
“fails to explicitly teach the standard feature pattern storing
means (105) for storing feature patterns of standard non-speech
sound signals and display pattern storing means (107) for storing
non-speech sound display information corresponding to the
standard non-speech sound signals.” According to the examiner
(Answer, pages 3 and 4),
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the present invention was made
to modify the storing means of Sanada et al as claimed
to store different sound signal (speech or non-speech
signal) in order to provide flexibility to the speech
recognition system.
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 13 and 14) that:
The applied reference does not disclose or suggest
a constitution similar to that of the present invention
as claimed in which nonspeech sound is detected and
information regarding the detected nonspeech sound is
displayed.
Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that,
for a sufficient rejection under 35 USC 103,
obviousness must be shown from the prior art, and not
merely by supposed capabilities of known displays,
since in the present invention it is the very
particular subject matter that is being displayed which
itself forms a significant feature of the invention -
therefore, since the present invention is not shown or
suggested in the prior art, it is respectfully
submitted that it would clearly be unobvious to display
such non-shown information.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007