Appeal 2007-1864
Application 10/100,717
selection.12 Thus, since the articulatory value depends on the segments
selected, it therefore depends, at least in part, on a time constant. Claim 21
is therefore fully met by Hutchins.
Claims 22-26
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-
26. Hutchins’ segment selection that is based, in effect, on a time constant
does not involve training a time constant, let alone training a time constant
using a variety of articulation styles as claimed. At best, Hutchins merely
determines rise time (and therefore a time constant) which forms the basis
for segment selection.
For this reason alone, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 22-26.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to claims
13-16 and 21. We have not, however, sustained the Examiner's rejections
with respect to claims 1-12, 17-20, and 22-35. Therefore, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-35 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
12 See P. 9, supra, of this opinion.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013