Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
would have been obvious over the disclosure of Pavlovic, e.g., in Figure 5, of receiving
audio information and gesture information and, thereafter, computing the likelihood of
such a combination. Thus, the analysis does occur after receipt of the data to be
analyzed, as it must. If appellant is contending that first the spoken command must be
received and then, at a later time, the gesture information is received, and only then, at
a still later time, an analysis is made from this data, we find no patentable distinction,
and appellant has pointed to none, in receiving bits of data needed for an analysis at
different times. If a processor requires data A and data B in order to make an analysis,
it hardly matters, in our view, whether A and B are received simultaneously or at
different times. The processor still cannot make the analysis until it has all the data
necessary. Now, we suppose there may be some circumstances where some
advantage may be gained by receiving data at different times, but, clearly, the instant
specification and/or claims do not shed any light on what that might be. Thus, as
disclosed and claimed, we find that the skilled artisan would have discerned no
unobvious difference between receiving audio and visual data at different times or
simultaneously.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Since appellant makes no separate arguments as to the merits of any other
claim, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007