Appeal No. 2002-1982
Application No. 08/863,462
for three possibilities after the first utterance and requires
the termination of the call if the voice does not match (brief,
pages 8, 28 & 37). Appellant points out that the claims, in
contrast, allow access to the dial-up system even if no voice
recognition and verification is accomplished (brief, pages 9, 29
& 38). Appellant further argues that the claimed system does not
require the use of the voice recognition, but makes it available
only as an option for the caller to gain access (brief, pages 10,
30 & 39).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that although Hunt discloses a system with three options, it
still anticipates a two-option system (answer, page 4). The
Examiner apparently relies on Hunt (col. 3, lines 22-29) to show
that if an utterance is not accepted, the user is required to
input additional information which results in two possible
decisions: verified or not verified (answer, page 5).
Additionally, the Examiner argues that the system of Hunt,
similar to the claimed step (f), allows access to the service
after the user personal information is entered and verified
(answer, page 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007