Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
distortion values respectively) was intended to also apply to claims 14 and
15.
For both limitations, the Examiner refers to column 6, lines 3-17 of
Hutchins (Final Rejection 3). The passage refers to conditioning the
frequency domain samples to minimize the impact of variations and noise.
In this regard, Hutchins also notes that the output from the FFT element 42
is conditioned by a transform conditioning element 44 before final
processing to account for processing variations and noise (Hutchins, col. 10,
ll. 48-54; col. 11, ll. 56; Figs. 1 and 5).
The values generated as result of this conditioning process, in our
view, are reasonably considered “acoustic environmental values” generally.
By minimizing the impact of variations (i.e., distortion) and noise, the
conditioning process effectively accounts for spurious products generated
within the acoustic environment. Furthermore, since the values in the class
distinction matrix and raw class vector (and therefore the vector
normalization element 66) depend, at least in part, on the selected samples,
they likewise depend on these acoustic environmental values as well.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 14 and 15.
Claim 16
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. As we
indicated previously in connection with claim 1, we find that the eight
predetermined articulatory parameters or six spectral classes (and two null
classes) can be broadly considered “articulatory dynamics values at a
previous time” -- values that fully meet articulatory values “of the previous
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013