Appeal No. 2002-1241
Application No. 08/883,141
In contrast to the examiner’s position, appellants urge that the claimed echo canceller
system performs echo cancellation only as needed, while Reese performs the echo cancellation
on all received signals.
We have closely reviewed the arguments of both appellants and the examiner, as well as
the disclosure of Reese. We conclude that while, at first blush, the examiner’s position seems to
be supported by Figure 2 of Reese and the disclosure of multiplexer 56 routing signals one way if
echo cancellation is required and another way if echo cancellation is not required, we agree with
appellants that all received signals in Reese are subjected to echo cancellation so that each signal
has an original form and a processed form (i.e., processed by an echo canceller). Then, the
multiplexer 56 selects either the unprocessed signal, or the processed signal from an echo
canceler module, for placement into each outbound time slot on the basis of whether each
corresponding channel is to be processed by an echo canceler module (see column 5, lines 53-57,
of Reese).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007