Appeal No. 2004-1117
Application No. 09/348,425
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 22 through 31.
Independent claims 22 and 27 each recite:
identifying a voice command having a voice command
component and a dictation component within a contiguous
utterance, wherein said voice command component is
specified by a command grammar and said dictation
component is free-form text which is not specified by
said command grammar, and wherein said dictation
component is embedded within said voice command.
Thus, all of the claims require that the identified voice command
has a dictation component, which is text that does not follow the
command grammar.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that Gould does not teach
identifying voice commands that include a dictation component.
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 9-10) that "commands in Gould
are fully specified by templates. . . . The templates define the
words that may be said within command sentences and the order in
which the words are to be spoken." Thus, appellants assert
(Brief, page 10) that Gould's templates do not permit free-form
speech to be included within the command structure. We agree.
Gould discloses (column 2, lines 6-11) that his invention
recognizes commands within dictated text without the user having
to switch between command and dictation modes. Gould
accomplishes such recognition by comparing speech frames to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007