Appeal No. 1998-0610
Application 08/584,726
selection means coupled to said detecting means for passing only certain of
said items, said certain items being those having index terms corresponding to those in
said profile,
memory means coupled to said selection means for storing at least the
digitally coded speech allophone information and special codes for inflection of said
certain items as said certain items are received,
switch means operable by said used for choosing among said items stored
in said memory means, and
audio conversion means coupled to said memory means and responsive to
said switch means for regenerating analog speech signals corresponding to at least the
digitally coded speech allophone information and special codes for inflection of each of
said chosen items stored in said memory means.
Opinion
The rejections are reversed.
A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not be construed as an affirmative
indication that the appellants’ claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on which the examiner’s rejection
of the claims is based.
It is the examiner who has the initial burden to present a factual basis supporting the
conclusion of prima facie obviousness. As is stated by the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals in In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967):
A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a
factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without
hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. In
making this evaluation, all facts must be considered. The
Patent Office [examiner] has the initial duty of supplying the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007