Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
(2) utilizing an articulatory value that (1) describes a dynamic aspect
of a speech signal, and (2) depends in part on an acoustic environment value.
Our particular choice of construction, however, does not substantively
impact our overall interpretation of the claim. Ultimately, the predicted
acoustic value will depend either (1) directly on the acoustic environmental
value, or (2) indirectly on the acoustic environmental value that utilizes an
articulatory value which, in turn, depends on the acoustic environmental
value.
Nevertheless, despite this ambiguity, we find the second construction
to be the most reasonable as it most naturally aligns with the disclosure.10
We therefore construe claim 13 as requiring the articulatory value to depend
in part on the acoustic environment value.
With this construction, we turn to Hutchins. In our view, Hutchins’
single feature vector 76 reasonably corresponds to “a predicted acoustic
value for a phonological unit” since this vector effectively depends on the
normalized probability class vector 68. This normalized probability class
vector represents the probability that a particular spectral segment
(“phonological unit”) falls within a respective class in accordance with the
class distinction matrix 62 (“articulatory values” that describe dynamic
aspects of the speech signal). These class distinction values are dependent
upon not only particular articulatory patterns that arise frequently, but also
10 See, e.g., claims 8 and 9 (reciting that the articulatory dynamics value
depends on noise and distortion values respectively); see also Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“The
construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns
with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct
construction.”) (citations omitted).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013