Appeal No. 1996-2198
Application 08/077,506
a reference pattern for later comparison to an unknown
incoming speech signal in identifier 12 (Spec. at 13, lines
11-27).
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-5 for nonenablement.
F. The merits of the § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The examiner makes separate indefiniteness arguments with
respect to claims 1, 3 and 5. Claim 1 is said to be
indefinite because "[i]t is unclear how the 'second forming
means' and the 'first forming means' operate to produce 'a
reference pattern."
This argument, which appears to assert nonenablement rather
than indefiniteness, is unconvincing for the reasons given
above.
Claims 3 and 5 are allegedly unclear because
both indicate that the "identifying means" is
connected to the "second forming means." However,
the "second forming means" is contained in the
"reference pattern generating means." The "mode
selection switch means" selects between the
"training mode" and "recognition mode" which are
separately performed by the "reference pattern
generating means" and the "identifying means,"
respectively. Therefore, the "identifying means"
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007