Appeal No. 1998-2936
Application No. 08/665,590
been completed upon entry into a cell, as discussed above. Furthermore, the input of a
command, either keyed or uttered, would have been before the input of the desired
number. Whether the command is processed or queued until the entry of the desired
number would have been a design option for the skilled artisan, in our view. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive because the language of claim 18 does not require a step of
exchanging at the time of initiating.
With respect to claim 19, appellants argue that although Reed discloses the base
station having speech recognition for controlling a portable communication device, there is
no disclosure of it being used to determine a telephone number. (See brief at page 7.) We
agree with appellants. While Reed expressly states in column 3 that “[a] further benefit
obtained by placing the voice recognizer 102 in or near the base 202 is that the voice
recognizer 206 can now be shared by multiple remote units over the entire coverage range
of the base station . . . the recognition circuitry can be used at maximal efficiency,” Reed
does not specifically disclose the determination of the telephone number using voice
recognition. But, the examiner relies on the teaching of Gerson with respect to the input of
the audio voice information denoting a telephone number. (See answer at page 4 and
Gerson at the abstract and column 5.) In our view, we agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007