Appeal No. 2003-0193
Application 09/306,469
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the method claimed in the appellant’s claim 1. We
therefore reverse the rejections of this claim and claims 2-20
that depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
Claims 21 and 30
The appellant’s claims 21 and 30, which claim a voice
controlled capture system, both require a host processor which
1) contains a memory for storing a voice macro command
recognition table, 2) compares a first recognition pattern to at
least one recognition pattern stored in the voice macro command
recognition table, 3) when there is a match, retrieves a voice
macro command file linked to the matched recognition pattern
stored in the voice macro command recognition table, 4) accesses
at least one command number from the voice macro command file,
5) finds a matching command number in a voice command recognition
table, and 6) retrieves a first voice command file linked to the
matching command number.
The examiner does not point out where Brais or Ackley
discloses these limitations, or explain how Brais and Ackley
would have fairly suggested these limitations to one of ordinary
skill in the art. The examiner relies upon the arguments
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007