Appeal No. 96-1246
Application No. 08/205,812
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 12 through
15 as being anticipated by Fukuda, Appellants argue on pages
15 and 16 of the brief that Fukuda fails to teach the
Appellants’ claimed limitations as required under 35 U.S.C. §
102. In particular, Appellants argue that Fukuda does not
teach or suggest means for parallel processing between filter
application and coefficient and data signal loading as recited
in Appellants' claims 1 and 2. Appellants further argue that
Fukuda does not teach or suggest the means for overlapping
instruction execution and digital signal and coefficient
loading as recited in Appellants' claims 12 through 15.
Upon a careful review of Fukuda, we fail to find that
Fukuda teaches a "means for recursively filtering the audio
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007