Appeal No. 1998-0665
Application 08/303,128
for unambiguously distinguishing spoken commands from data
(brief-page 5). We agree, White’s button only activates the
microphone, and does not distinguish between spoken data and
spoken commands.
The Examiner’s statement that the combination of
references
would have inferred the desirability of using
buttons to distinguish between voice input signals
representing data and voice input signals
representing commands. [Answer-page 5.]
is a stretch that reaches clearly into the realm of improper
hindsight. We are in total agreement with Appellant’s
statement in the reply brief wherein Appellant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that the
Examiner has inadvertently employed hindsight in an
attempt to piece together the invention from a
carefully selected collection of prior art
references. Even with the benefit of such
hindsight, however, the Examiner was still unable to
find certain aspects of the invention in the prior
art, and therefore resorted to “reasonable
inferences” [answer-page 5] to fill the voids.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007