Appeal No. 2004-0847
Application No. 09/246,412
view of well-known prior art. Claims 9, 19 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spoltman in
view of well-known prior art and Hirayama.
Appellants submit at page 4 of the principal brief that
"[a]ll claims stand or fall together." Accordingly, inasmuch as
appellants have not presented a separate argument for any
particular claim on appeal, we select claim 11 as the claim with
which all the appealed claims stand or fall. Since appellants
have not addressed the examiner's separate rejection of claims 9,
19 and 29, we will limit our consideration to the examiner's
rejection of claim 11 over Spoltman.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Spoltman, like appellants, discloses a method of testing a
speech recognizer by storing a plurality of voiced utterances,
receiving a prompt for a first operation, responding to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007