Appeal No. 2001-0860
Application No. 08/772,047
Even if the Examiner is contending that defining the
interface between the programs is the underlying requirement for
adding libraries to an application (answer, page 15), such
assertion does not provide a reason or motivation for combining
the teachings of the applied prior art. The Speech reference
introduces various development tools for adding speech enabled
features to an existing product without the need to recompile
and, at best, mentions implementation of such tools as a dynamic
link library. Speech, in fact, merely discusses the existence of
such tools without any details of how the development tools may
be used for adding the speech enabled input component while OODLL
merely discusses two different approaches for designing DLL
interface, i.e., fewer polymorphic entry points vs. separately
named entry points for each function. We agree with Appellant
(brief, page 6) that these disparate references to speech
recognition and DLLs fail to teach or motivate one of ordinary
skill in the art to replace an input component of the application
program with one having an alternate object-oriented dynamic
library and enable an existing object-oriented application with
speech capability, as recited in claim 1.
We note that independent claims 5 and 9 also recite means
for replacing an input component of the application program with
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007