Appeal No. 2002-1241
Application No. 08/883,141
56 selects either the unprocessed SEND-IN 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.
When lines 37-57 of column 5 are read together with lines 26-32, it becomes clear to us
that the former explains exactly how the path multiplexer 56, described in the latter, is routing
the signals and that explanation is that each received B-channel value is routed to an echo
canceler module so that there is a processed and an unprocessed version of the same signal and
one or the other is further routed to the output based on whether echo cancellation has been
enabled or disabled. That is, we find no basis for concluding that Reese discloses the passing of
an unprocessed signal (i.e., one that has not been subjected to an echo canceler module) without
also having a stored version of that signal that has been subjected to echo cancellation.
Accordingly, in contrast to Reese, the instant invention does not select from one of two
signals (i.e., processed and unprocessed) but, rather, performs signal processing only on certain
signals that require echo cancellation.
The question, of course, is whether the instant claims make this distinction between the
instant invention and Reese. We think they do.
Independent claims 1 and 4 each recite, inter alia, the routing of selected transmissions
through the pool switch matrix with or without echo cancellation or through echo cancellers “on
an as needed basis.” Since Reese has been determined to perform echo cancellation on all
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007