Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
the particular language spoken (i.e., the particular linguistic environment).
See Hutchins, col. 12, ll. 30-37. Thus, the class distinction values are
dependent upon “acoustic environmental values” pertaining to, at a
minimum, the specific language spoken.
But even if we were to construe the claim such that the predicted
acoustic value directly depended in part on an acoustic environmental value
(the first construction above), the claim would still be fully met. In that
case, the vector normalization element 66 would constitute an “acoustic
environmental value” as it utilizes data from the raw class vector 64 -- data
dependent, at least in part, on the class distinction values which, in turn,
depend on the particular acoustic environment as noted above (e.g., the
linguistic environment).
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 13.
Claims 14 and 15
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15
which call for the acoustic environmental value to comprise a noise and
distortion11 value respectively. As noted previously in connection with
claim 27, we presume that the Examiner’s position with respect to claims 8
and 9 (calling for the articulatory dynamics value to depend on noise and
11 The term “distortion” is not defined in Appellants’ specification; thus, we
construe this term as having its plain meaning. The term “distort” is defined,
in pertinent part, as “to change something from its usual, original, natural or
intended meaning, condition or shape.” See Cambridge Dictionaries Online,
at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22695&dict=CALD (last
visited Sept. 4, 2007).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013