Appeal No. 2006-2156
Application No. 09/790,296
the realignment teaching of Yuen as disclosed in section 2.5 directed to
Cantonese speech, to the alignment teaching discussed earlier in Yuen (section
2.4) with respect to Mandarin speech. We agree with the Examiner, and there
are no convincing arguments to the contrary from Appellants, that the ordinarily
skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that the Cantonese
speech realignment feature of Yuen has equal applicability to Mandarin speech in
order to improve recognition rate in situations where sounds in a first language
do not exist in a second language.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing arguments
from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as independent claims 7-9, 15-17, 19, and 20 and dependent
claims 3 and 11 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.2
2 Although Appellants’ arguments restate (Supplemental Brief, pages 7 and 8) the
language of independent claims 7, 15, 20 which, instead of the terminology
“aligning” and “realigning,” the terminology “labeling” and “relabeling” is used, no
arguments have been made which question the Examiner’s correspondence of
the operations of “aligning” and “realigning” in Yuen with the claimed “labeling”
and “relabeling” language.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013