Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
there is a change in a “PIP display characteristic,” in response to an audio “command,”
or “indication.” We note, as did the examiner, that only independent claim 1 calls for an
audio “command.” The other independent claims call only for an audio “indication.”
Moreover, as the examiner noted, the original disclosure appeared directed only to an
“indication.” Therefore, we believe the examiner has rightly, and reasonably, interpreted
the claimed “command” to be any type of audio “indication,”
The voice direction detection unit of Inagaki may be said to detect an audio
“indication,” or “command.” But, in any event, Pavlovic clearly teaches a “command,” by
any definition, which, along with a gesture, is used to perform some action. See, for
example, page 123, right-hand column, of Pavlovic. When Pavlovic’s teaching is
viewed in light of Inagaki’ disclosure of controlling a PIP display characteristic
automatically, through voice, we conclude, as did the examiner, that the skilled artisan
would have been led to employ Pavlovic’s dual, i.e., speech/gesture control system to
control the panning of Inagaki’s camera.
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s argument anent not sensing the “content of
the speech” in Inagaki, since not only is such a limitation not a part of the instant claim
language, but Pavlovic clearly discloses sensing the content of the speech used to
control the action, as at page 123, where the user points to an object, while
simultaneously commanding, “move left” in order to effect such movement of the object
pointed to.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007