Ex parte ARSLAN et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1998-2664                                                                                     
              Application No. 08/426,426                                                                               


                     Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:                                                       
                     1.  A filter comprising:                                                                          
                            (a)  an input for receiving frames of sampled speech signals;                              
                            (b)  an attenuation filter coupled to said input, wherein for each of said                 
                            frames said attenuation filter uses a noise-free speech power                              
                            spectrum estimate based on line spectral frequencies (LSFs) in a                           
                            codebook; and                                                                              
                            (c)  an output coupled to said attenuation filter for emitting filtered                    
                            frames.                                                                                    
                     The following reference is relied on by the examiner:                                             
                     Deller, Jr. et al., Discrete-Time Processing of Speech Signals, published by                      
                     Prentice Hall, Inc. (NJ) (1987), pp. 331-333, 517, 521, 523, 526.                                 
                     Claims 1, 2 and 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence                   
              of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Deller alone.                                                   
                     Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is                 
              made to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                     
                                                      OPINION                                                          
                     For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final rejection and the answer, we               
              sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 10, but reverse the rejection for  claims 7 through          
              9.                                                                                                       





                                                          2                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007