Appeal No. 1998-2705
Application No. 08/867-773
On pages 6 and 7 of the brief, Appellant argues that
neither Hou nor McMahan teaches or suggests all the features
of Appellant's claimed limitations. In particular, Appellant
argues that Hou and McMahan fail to teach or suggest the steps
recited in Appellant's claim 1 as follows:
prompting the caller to initiate a first call to the
automated system; initiating a second call in the
network to a facility for performing speech
recognition; [and] bridging the first and second
calls.
In particular, Appellant argues that Hou does not teach
Appellant's step of initiating a second call in a network to a
speech recognition system. Rather, the Hou patent teaches
placing a first call to a voice directed communications
system. The voice directed communications system then
launches a second call to a destination specified by the first
call. Appellant argues that Hou contemplates an entirely
different process than Appellant's step of initiating a second
call to a speech recognition system. Appellant further argues
that McMahan does not teach placing calls to a speech
recognition system because McMahan performs the speech to DTMF
conversion in the telephone itself.
On page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner responds to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007