Appeal No. 2002-1982
Application No. 08/863,462
Therefore, Hunt’s initial inquiry is whether a “match”
within a predetermined criterion is established before access is
allowed. If a “match” is not established, the system makes a
second inquiry to determine whether the voice “substantially”
matches a stored sample, which results in the termination of the
call if the entered voice cannot be “substantially” matched.
However, if the second inquiry determines that the voice is
substantially matched, but not within the predetermined criteria,
the user is requested to enter additional personal information
before access is authorized. It is this “not matched,” but
“substantially matched” state that reads on the claimed “not
verified” state.
“The starting point for any claim construction must be the
claims themselves,” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see
also Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp.,
859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (claim
interpretation must begin with the language of the claim itself).
Here, Appellant’s claim 1 requires “using a speaker verification
system that has only two possible decisions verified and not
verified,” which either allows access when the user is verified
or requests additional information when the user is not verified,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007