Appeal No. 2002-2207
Application 09/057,729
distinguish between speech and noise. Appellants also argue that
Kroeker does not make up for the deficiencies in Satoh [brief,
pages 4-6]. The examiner responds that appellants have not
considered the correct portion of Satoh. The examiner asserts
that Figure 6 of Satoh and the corresponding portion of the
disclosure teach that each frame of incoming signals are
processed as recited in claim 1 [answer, pages 6-7]. Appellants
respond that the examiner is incorrect in assessing the manner in
which Figure 6 of Satoh operates. Specifically, appellants argue
that only the noise frames in Satoh are stored in buffer 109 of
Figure 6 and not each frame of data as claimed [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
14 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the
briefs. We agree with appellants that the examiner’s
understanding of the manner in which the embodiment shown in
Satoh’s Figure 6 operates is wrong. As noted by appellants, the
buffer shown in Figure 6 of Satoh stores calculated parameters of
only those input frames which are judged to be noise by judging
unit 111 and not the frames judged to be speech [column 7, lines
14-22]. Thus, neither Satoh nor Kroeker teaches the calculation
of normalization coefficients for each frame of input data
regardless of whether the frame contains speech or noise. The
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007