Appeal No. 2004-0847
Application No. 09/246,412
device" (page 5 of principal brief, second paragraph).
Appellants contend that "the testing apparatus actually tests a
device that incorporates voice recognition" (id.). However, we
concur with the examiner that Spoltman's determination whether
the speech recognizer correctly identifies the audio input does,
in fact, test the functionality of the voice recognizer.
Manifestly, proper voice recognition of the voice recognizer is a
basic function of the device. Also, as noted by the examiner,
claim 11 on appeal does not define any functionality that is not
performed by Spoltman. Appellants' arguments, for the most part,
do not correspond to the breadth of the subject matter
encompassed by the appealed claims.
Appellants present the argument that "[t]he fact that voice
recognition devices typically prompt a user for an input cannot
be directly applied to extend the teaching of Spoltman to result
in the present application for patent" (page 6 of principal
brief, second paragraph). However, appellants fail to present a
rationale in support of this conclusion.
Appellants further contend that "[t]he system of Spoltman
does not use the audio input to test an associated function"
(id.). However, appealed claim 11 does not require the testing
of such an associated function.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007