Appeal No. 1998-2936
Application No. 08/665,590
skill in the art at the time of the invention that the input audio information may be either
processed at the wireless telephone or at the base station as suggested by Reed.
With respect to claim 20, appellants argue that the audio voice signals are
transmitted as audio voice signals to the base station and that the prior art does not teach
this limitation. We disagree with appellants. Figure 3 of Reed teaches the transmission of
voice signals to the base station and provides motivations for the
skilled artisan to perform speech recognition at the base station. Therefore, this argument
is not persuasive, and we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 18-20.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007