Appeal No. 1997-2048
Application No. 08/175,326
Naik, J.M., “SPEAKER VERIFICATION: A TUTORIAL,” IEEE COMMUNICATIONS
MAGAZINE, January 1990, pp 42-48.(Naik)
Claims 1 and 3-5 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Naik ‘720 in view of Dowden and Picone. Claim 6 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dowden in view of Green. Claims 1
and 3-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naik ‘720 in
view of Naik, Dowden and Picone.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Aug. 29, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed Dec. 18, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Jul. 11, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed Nov. 4, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007