Appeal No. 2005-2505
Application 09/740,277
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue at
page 5 of the brief, French “explains in col. 2, line 55-col. 3,
line 2, that the use of time windows is undesirable.” We do not
agree. Appellants cite no specific language in French to support
their argument and our review finds no such language. Rather,
the cited portion of French merely states that time windows are
known, but they do not include an indication of the length of the
time window (providing an indication that speech recognition is
now in background state being one of French’s inventive
features). Contrary to Appellants’ position, French does teach
it is known in the art to use a time window to turn off speech
recognition to conserve processing power at lines 55-62 of column
2. We recognize that French describes using active state
triggering (“keys or tactile interface to initiate another
process” at col. 6, lines 55-56). However, French does not
preclude using active state triggering in combination with
passive state triggering (the time window as used in col. 2,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007