Appeal No. 2001-0860
Application No. 08/772,047
determining if speech recognition is installed on said
computer system while maintaining the input component and the
speech enabled object-oriented input component; and
replacing said object-oriented input component of said
application program with said speech enabled input component at
runtime to allow speech operation in said application program.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Gen Kiyooka, “Object-Oriented DLL’s” (OODLL), Byte, pp. 257-259,
(December 1992).
Esther Schindler, “Computer Speech” (Speech), Chapters 12 and 13,
pp. 221-294, (February 1996).
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Speech in view of OODLL.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference
to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed May 5, 2000) for the
Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15,
filed February 22, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that the combination of Speech and OODLL,
as proposed by the Examiner, is suggested by neither of the
references and only use of hindsight would have supplied what is
missing in the references (brief, page 4). Appellants further
point out that while Speech provides an overview of what various
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007