Appeal No. 1995-3030 Page 14
Application No. 08/073,091
(Examiner's Answer at 5-6.) The appellants argue, "Piosenka
recognizes a person, as opposed to recognizing a message
conveyed by a person." (Appeal Br. at 23.)
As mentioned regarding the rejections relying on
Korsinsky, the limitations of claims 44-89 require combining
signals from a speech transducer and a handwriting transducer
to select a most probable message input to a message
recognition system. The examiner fails to show a teaching or
suggestion of the claimed limitations in the prior art.
Although Piosenka teaches that "user 2 may have a voice print
taken by voice print processor 14," col. 5, ll. 3-4, and
"static and dynamic signature information received form [sic]
pressure tablet 15," col. 5, ll. 26-27, signals from the voice
print processor and the pressure tablet are not combined to
select a most probable message input to a message recognition
system. To the contrary, data obtained from the processor and
tablet are compared with decrypted credentials to determine
the identity of a user. Specifically, "[t]rait processor and
comparison logic 37 then compares the set of data obtained
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007