Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
interface (GUI) display file to a mobile terminal, the GUI
display file having attached thereto at least one of a dictionary
file having phonemes and syntax file having allowable patterns of
words to facilitate speech recognition, wherein the at least one
of the dictionary files or syntax files are content specific to
the GUI display file as recited in Appellant's claims. However,
the Examiner points out that Barclay teaches in column 3, lines
16-17, that it is known to download grammar files to a mobile
unit. The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
reading Barclay would recognize that the Appellant's invention
would be considered prior art having limited vocabularies and
grammars which are downloaded, based on specific Web page topics.
See pages 3-4 of the Examiner's answer.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on
objective evidence of record." Id. "Board conclusory statements
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not 'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999,
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007