Appeal No. 2001-1487
Application No. 08/970,824
Appellants argue that claims 1-5 were rejected without consideration of the
proper construction of the recited means-plus-function elements. (See brief at page
17.) We agree with appellants. Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation with respect to independent claims 1 and 5, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1-5.
With respect to independent claims 6 and 12, the examiner maintains that Chen
teaches the claimed invention and use of a bilinear model. (See answer at page 6 and
Chen at column 2.) Appellants argue that Chen teaches the addition of noise to speech
which would be a linear model rather than a bilinear model. Appellants’ specification at
page 5 states that “data is modeled as a product of two linear forms corresponding to
parameters of each factor. The data may or may not result from physical processes
having a bilinear form that is used to model the data” and at page 7 of the specification
states that “[b]ilinear models represent data which can be decomposed into two or more
factors.” At page 24 of the brief, appellants argue that a “bilinear model requires
multiplication, whereas addition results in a linear model, as is well known in the art.”
We agree with appellants that the language of claims 6 and 12 requires a bilinear
model whereas Chen expressly teaches the use of a linear model.
Appellants argue that the inventive technique of Chen uses a linear model and
not a bilinear model and determines only noise which is not a data factor. (See brief at
page 25.) We agree with appellants. The examiner again maintains that “appellants
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007