Appeal No. 1997-2048 Application No. 08/175,326 (See answer at page 8.) The examiner continues to state that “[t]he reference speech sample is arbitrary -- to utilize a system command would be an obvious choice and one motivation for doing so is to make the system more user friendly.” (See answer at pages 9-10.) Furthermore, “[t]he examiner maintains that to use said verbally entered commands as the word or phrase to be used in the verification process would have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” (See supplemental answer at page 3.) The examiner maintains that the “[i]ssue is whether or not use of system commands as the word or phrase to be recognized is obvious in light of the prior art.” (See supplemental answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner that sample selection for use in the verification is arbritrary, but disagree with the examiner that the prior art applied against the claims teaches or would have suggested the use of the system command as both the command and the voice sample for user verification. We find that each of the prior art references applied against the claims teaches separate portions of the claimed invention, but the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning for the combination and modification to the prior art references beyond the above cited conclusion for the combination of teachings achieving the invention as set forth in the language of claim 7. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 7, nor the other independent claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. Nor will we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 8-10. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007