Appeal No. 2002-1743
Application No. 09/047,866
display elements as in Cleary” (brief-page 4), we find nothing in the instant claims which
would preclude a time delay or BCD counter. Arguments directed to unclaimed
elements are not persuasive of nonobviousness of the instant claimed subject matter.
Appellants also argue that the peak detect filters 18 of Mitel are not “processor-
accessible storage registers” (brief-page 4), as claimed. However, at pages 9-10 of the
answer, the examiner cites page 8, lines 8-26, of Mitel, showing that register 40, part of
peak detect filters 18, is loaded with “peak(n).” The examiner concludes that register 40
does, indeed, store a peak value, and is, therefore, a storage register, contrary to
appellants’ position.
Since the examiner’s rationale appears reasonable and we have nothing in
rebuttal from appellants tending to show that Mitel’s peak detect filters 18 may not
constitute storage registers, we find for the examiner that the claimed storage registers
are taught by Mitel.
At page 5 of the brief, appellants argue that “[s]ince the Mitel’s filters 18 do not
provide the DSP accessible storage function as claimed they fail to correspond to the
claimed registers for storing a value indicative of a peak signal as in Appellants’ claimed
invention.” This argument is misplaced because, again, appellants are arguing the
references individually, rather than in combination. It is true that Mitel does not provide
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007