Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
time frame” as claimed. Significantly, since these predefined parameters are
defined earlier in time, they correspond to articulatory values “of the
previous time frame” as claimed -- a time frame that is unspecified.
For the foregoing reasons, we will therefore sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16.
Claims 17-20
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
As we indicated previously in connection with claim 1, the Examiner has
failed to identify -- nor can we reasonably ascertain -- how the predicted
acoustic value (i.e., the single feature vector) depends on an articulation
target as claimed. Although Hutchins does indicate that the articulatory
parameter values of the feature vector are visually inspected on a display
(Hutchins, col. 17, ll. 39-50; Figs. 7-8) which would suggest a “target”
application (i.e., an “articulatory target”) for the articulatory value used by
the predicted value, we still fail to see how the articulatory value depends on
such a target.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17 or dependent claims 18-20.
Claim 21
We will, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. As
we indicated previously in connection with claim 27, Hutchins determines
rise time (and therefore a time constant) which forms the basis for segment
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013