Appeal No. 2005-2505
Application 09/740,277
lines 55-62). We note that lines French also teaches this
passive state triggering with respect to a related invention at
lines 8-11 of column 1.
Appellants argue at page 6, that “French overcomes the
disadvantages of time windows by implementing a foreground state
and a background state for speech recognition,” and “[t]o apply a
time window for speech recognition to French would go against the
teachings of French.” Again we disagree. At no time does French
ever use the word “disadvantage” to describe the time window.
Rather, at most French states that a user “may be confused” as to
which input state or mode a device is in currently (col. 2, line
66, through col. 3, line 4).
Appellants admit at page 7, that “[i]t is appropriate to use
time windows in Matthews because the system should not wait
indefinitely for an input by a user in an access mode.”
Appellants then argue this feature is not appropriate for French
because “French teaches that speech recognition should always be
available for receiving voiced commands to be performed.” We do
not agree. As above, Appellants cite no specific language in
French to support their argument and our review finds no such
language.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007