Appeal No. 2004-0847
Application No. 09/246,412
prompt with a first selection, providing an audio input to the
speech recognizer which corresponds to the first selection, and
monitoring the recognizer for success of the first operation.
Like the examiner, we find that the claimed first operation and
first selection correspond to Spoltman's selecting a particular
audio signal that is sent to the speech recognizer. Also, we
agree with the examiner that Spoltman's determination that the
speech recognizer either recognized, unrecognized, mis-
recognized, etc., the audio signal corresponds to the claim
requirement of monitoring the speech recognizer for success of
the first operation.
As appreciated by the examiner, Spoltman does not disclose
that the prompt for the first operation is received from the
speech recognizer. However, the examiner has made the factual
determination that the claimed step of "receiving a prompt for a
first operation from the speech recognizer" is "well-known in the
telecommunication art" (page 4 of Answer, last paragraph). In
support of this finding, the examiner cites patents to Garberg,
Goldberg and Kitazume (see page 5 of Answer, first paragraph).
Appellants apparently agree with the examiner's assessment of the
prior art in stating that "while the speech recognizer (or
speech-enabled device) of Appellants' claims is known in the art,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007