Appeal No. 1998-2939
Application 08/129,077
energy peak indicative of a center of a vowel sound. The
examiner cites Parsons as teaching this step. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
replace the general root finding technique of Papamichalis
with the energy peak technique disclosed by Parsons [Paper No.
22, pages 5-7].
Appellant argues that neither Papamichalis nor Parsons
teaches the identifying step of claim 12 being performed
before the extending step of claim 12. The remainder of the
arguments in the briefs and the answer generally refer to
specific sections of Papamichalis, and the examiner and
appellant simply disagree as to what these sections of
Papamichalis would have suggested to the artisan within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Although there are some similarities between the
claimed invention and the disclosure of Papamichalis, we are
constrained to agree with appellant that the specific method
of independent claim 12 has not been established by the
examiner to have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007