Ex parte RABIN - Page 6

              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.                                                                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007