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. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007