Appeal No. 2006-2156
Application No. 09/790,296
reasons articulated by the Examiner at page 7 of the Answer. While Appellants
contend (Supplemental Brief, pages 9 and 10; Reply Brief, page 4) that, since
Yuen describes that the performance of Yuen’s speech recognition system is
“good in constrained applications,” Yuen actually “teaches away” from application
of the disclosed system to large vocabulary recognizers, we do not find this to be
convincing. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, we find that the “further study”
discussed at section 3 of Yuen in relation to large scale vocabulary systems is in
fact a suggestion to the ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt the system of Yuen to
large scale vocabulary systems, and not a “teaching away.”
Lastly, we make the observation that, in our view, Appellants’ arguments
at page 10 of the Supplemental Brief mischaracterize the disclosure of Yuen. At
this section of the Supplemental Brief, Appellants contend that in each of the four
mapping methods disclosed by Yuen “isolated utterances of monosyllabic
Mandarin data” are required to generate mapping unlike the present claimed
invention. We find no basis in Yuen for this conclusion of Appellants. Our review
of Yuen reveals that it is only in the description of the free form method at section
2.2 of Yuen where the need for feeding isolated utterances into a phoneme
recognizer is required.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013