Appeal No. 2005-0743
Application No. 09/351,723
per se. This is done through the use of prestored voice prints recited in
independent claims 23 and 30 on appeal.
As indicated at the bottom of page 15 of the principal brief on
appeal, appellants have not used the term voice recognition within its
particular recitation of speaker independent voice recognition in dependent
claims 25 and 32 in any manner that is inconsistent with the accepted
meanings in the art as evidenced by the definition attributed to the
questioned term from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 2003 Edition, page
640, which was attached to both the brief and reply brief. It appears that
the definition of speaker independent voice recognition that appellants are
using is the recognition of any user’s voice without prior training or
knowledge of the user even though appellants’ ultimate aim in the claims
and in the disclosure is to identify a particular user based on voice
recognition.
We know of no reason why the appellants should be prohibited from
using the technology of speaker independent voice recognition as part of
their process. This approach is also used by the Schalk patent mentioned
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007