Appeal No. 97-2541
Application 08/369,022
corresponding “text equivalent” as the appellants have
claimed. The general teaching of an extension of the text-
based electronic mail model to incorporate audio, video, and
graphics, would not have reasonably suggested sending both
speech and its “equivalent” text. For instance, the
incorporated audio may simply add explanation to a particular
portion of the text, as is described in Pate on page 318,
column 2, paragraph 1:
With these features [incorporating audio,
video, and data] it is possible to create a
message with a graphics overlay or
explanatory text of audio synchronized to
appropriate points in the message.
Explanatory audio material added to a text message is not
the same as speech data accompanied by its equivalent text
arrived at by local speech recognition on the audio speech
input. Note that claim 1 requires performing speech
recognition on the local speech input at the workstation to
generate a local text equivalent, and claim 11 recites a means
for performing speech recognition on the local speech input at
the work station to generate a local text equivalent. Thus,
corresponding text equivalent is generated from audio speech
by speech recognition.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007