Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
Claims 1-12
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Hutchins (Final Rejection 2-4). Regarding
independent claim 1, Appellant argues that Hutchins does not identify a
predicted value for a hypothesis phonological unit using an articulatory
dynamics value that depends on an articulatory dynamics value at a previous
time and an articulation target. According to Appellant, the articulatory
parameters in Hutchins are not dependent upon a previous set of articulatory
parameters (Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner contends that any one of the identified eight
articulatory parameters (76) in Figure 6 of Hutchins depends on predefined
articulatory parameters or phonemes represented by the matrices (72).
Appellant also argues that Hutchins does not compare an observed
value to a predicted value to determine a likelihood for a hypothesis
phonological unit as claimed (Br. 4). The Examiner responds that the
claimed comparing step reads on Hutchins’ mapping spectral data into a
series of predefined articulatory parameters (Answer 6).
Appellant, however, disagrees and notes that Hutchins maps observed
spectra into the predefined articulatory parameters: a technique involving
converting or transforming the spectra into values for these predefined
parameters. According to Appellant, there is no comparison between the
spectra and the parameters; rather, the spectra are multiplied by a transform
matrix to produce the parameter values. Appellant emphasizes that mapping
a value into another value is not the same as comparing one value to another
(Reply Br. 4) (emphasis added).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013