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