Appeal No. 1997-1586
Application No. 08/183,671
Appellants argue that Harrison does not teach or suggest the mouth shape
variations/features as recited in the language of claim 1. (See brief at page 13.) We
agree with appellants. Here again the examiner has found basic teachings in Harrison
concerning the image of the mouth, but does not come to grips with the language of claim
1 with respect to the controlling the values of mouth shape parameters in accordance with
the duration of each phoneme which are matched to the audible speech output.
Since the combination of the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention
as recited in claim 1, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. Similarly, claims 2 and 3
contain similar limitations, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007