Ex parte SPECTOR - Page 6




               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