Ex parte BAYYA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-0437                                                        
          Application 08/627,249                                                      


          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
          1.  An output-based objective method for evaluating                         
          the quality of speech in a voice communication system                       
          comprising:                                                                 
          providing a plurality of speech reference vectors, the                      
          speech reference vectors corresponding to a plurality of known              
          clean speech samples obtained in a quiet environment;                       
          receiving an unknown corrupted speech signal from an                        
          unavailable clean speech signal that is corrupted with                      
          distortions;                                                                
          determining a plurality of distortions by comparing                         
          the unknown corrupted speech signal to at least one of the                  
          plurality of speech reference vectors; and                                  
          generating a score representing a subjective quality                        
          of the unknown corrupted speech signal based on the plurality               
          of distortions.                                                             
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Bahl et al. (Bahl)            4,718,094          Jan. 05, 1988              
          Picone et al. (Picone)        4,815,134          Mar. 21, 1989              
          Sakamoto et al. (Sakamoto)    5,404,422          Apr. 04, 1995              
          Hollier                       5,621,854          Apr. 15, 1997              
          (filed Dec. 12,                                                             
          1994)                                                                       
          Claims 1, 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                          
          § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Hollier.                 
          Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.              
          As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Hollier in view              
          of Sakamoto with respect to claims 2-4, 11-13 and 20, Hollier               

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007