Appeal No. 2000-0580
Application No. 09/025,347
seeks to modify the speech pattern of the student to match that of the stored phonetic dictionary
(see column 20, lines 25-55; column 26, lines 31-60). Additionally, we find in Corder no
disclosure of structure which causes the sounds spoken into the microphone to be digitized and
causes the computer to scan the dictionary to find the corresponding phonetic sounds digitally
stored therein and, when a word match is found, to present on the screen the letters which spell
the corresponding word and the image of the object identified thereby, as required in paragraph
D of claim 1.
In summary, we have determined that, with respect to claim 1, Corder fails to disclose
(1) an image library as recited in paragraph C, (2) a voice recognition unit which conditions the
phonetic dictionary to respond to the child's distinctive sound pattern and (3) structure for
performing the function set forth in the language in paragraph D following "whereby."
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to make the proposed
combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560,
562 (CCPA 1972). Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts
being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007