john_k - 1:58 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

You dial a number. Or if you have a phone that's at not more than 10 years old, you can say a command.
Your phone dials Google.
Google answers. They ask you to speak your search words.
You speak.
Their computer recognizes what you say.
It uses what you said to do what it always does - look for stuff.
It returns results, via existing methods, to your computer, to your phone, to the chip in your brain, or whatever else you can think of.

I don't see where the new technology is in this. This is another example of a patent that should be denied. Voice recognition by computers has been around for a long time. The practice of using voice commands to drive computer processes has been around a long time. And the act and art of tying this into an automated phone system has been around for a long time.

If their patent is on better voice recognition, then they should say so. If the patent is on a better search algorithm, then say so. If it is on localizing the search based upon the physical location of the caller, then say so. If the patent is on the transport process, then say so. But the patent is not for any of these things. The process (It is a process that is being patented) covered by this patent application is widely employed and has in fact been in use for quite a while.

Its a "one-click buy" patent for phone searches.