Ex parte RABIN - Page 3




              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