Appeal No. 2001-0860
Application No. 08/772,047
an alternate speech enabled input component. Similar to claim 1,
these two claims require that an alternate object-oriented
dynamic library supporting the same interface information provide
the speech recognition capability for an existing application.
Based on our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has failed
to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions to combine Speech and OODLL
to replace an input component of the application program with one
having an alternate object-oriented dynamic library to enable an
existing object-oriented application with speech capability, are
not shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 5 and 9, as well as claims 2-
4, 6-8 and 10-12 dependent thereon, over Speech and OODLL.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007