Appeal No. 2004-0847
Application No. 09/246,412
such as a cellular telephone with speech recognition and command
ability, and that such a speech recognizer provides a prompt for
an operation, this is NOT the device tested in Spoltman" (page 4
of Reply Brief, second paragraph).
Appellants, in emphasizing that the speech recognizer of
Spoltman does not provide a prompt for the testing operation of
the reference, miss the thrust of the examiner's rejection,
namely, that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the system of Spoltman by providing a prompt
from the speech recognizer. Appellants have presented no
argument why it would have been nonobvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ the admittedly known technique of
communicating a prompt from the speech recognizer to the testing
application of Spoltman. As a result, the examiner's position,
which is reasonable on its face, has not been refuted by
appellants.
Appellants acknowledge that the test application of Spoltman
"determines if the speech recognition application correctly
identified that audio input" (page 5 of principal brief, first
paragraph), but maintained that "[i]n contrast the present
application for patent presents a method of testing that
interactively tests the functionality of the voice recognition
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007