Appeal No. 2002-1982
Application No. 08/863,462
in Cameron, nor do we find any, that would have overcome the
deficiencies of Hunt with respect to their base claim 1, as
discussed above.2 Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 13 over Hunt and Cameron, but not with respect to claims
4-9.3
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14, 18 and
19 over Hunt, Cameron and Uchiyama, Appellant merely repeats the
arguments pointing to the alleged failure of the prior art to
teach a system having voice verification as an option to access
the system, brief, pages 36, 44 & 46). However, contrary to
Appellant’s position and as discussed above, the claimed optional
voice verification of base claims 10 and 15 are taught by the
prior art and therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
14, 18 and 19, dependant thereon, are sustained.
2 It should be noted that our decision to reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 1 does not preclude reliance on Hunt for a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103. However, such rejection neither is before us nor can be
implied based on the reasoning addressed in the rejection of claims 4-9 as no
reasoning and/or discussion that may be extended to the subject matter of
claim 1 was presented by the examiner.
3 Although not noted by the Examiner, we observe that the first
occurrence of the term “utterance” in the last line of claim 4 should probably
be “first utterance” in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007