Appeal No. 2005-2619 Application No. 09/734,826 of adjusting in the event of deviations. (Brief at page 7). We disagree with appellant and find that Uehara discloses that the servo-mechanism 14 operates to adjust the direction of the microphone 12 within a range which covers the voice input area B. While Uehara suggests movement of the microphone to the singular position of the mouth, we find that this position would have to be within a range of tolerance which would be set by the limitations of the servo-mechanism that drives and sets the position. Otherwise, the servo system may never be able to achieve the actual calculated position. Therefore, we find there to be a nominal range around every value for the physical constraints of the mechanical systems. Additionally, the examiner has identified the picture processing as shown in Figure 3 of Uehara as identifying transition points which would identify a range for the mouth between the neck/chin and the nose luminances. (Answer at pages 5 and 12-13). Here, we find this to also be positional determination which would then require adjustment of the directional microphone if the range was not a match to that of the microphone at that time. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive. Appellant argues that the examiner is trying to bypass the troublesome claim limitations. (Brief at page 7). We disagree and find that the examiner has identified how the combination would have taught and fairly suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive. Appellant argues that it is not clear how Schaffrina can be fairly said to teach detachment of the Uehara microphone from its tilting servo mechanism and moved into 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007