Appeal No. 1998-2664
Application No. 08/426,426
We note in passing that the examiner has provided additional evidence at page 5
of the answer that a codebook implementation of LSFs is old and well known in the art by
the citation to specific portions of the art of record that has not been relied upon formally.
This merely confirms what appellants have recognized is in the prior art at the bottom of
page 2 in the specification as filed anyway.
Although we have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 10, we reverse the
rejection of claims 7 through 9. Appellants' position at page 3 of the brief indicates that
claim 7 further explicitly requires the power spectrum estimate to be based upon a
weighted sum of LSFs of the codebook. The final rejection on which the examiner relies
as a basis of the rejection and the answer both fail to directly address this feature. As
such, the examiner has clearly failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of this
claim. Therefore, we must reverse the rejection of claim 7 and its respective dependent
claims 8 and 9. Although from a mathematical point of view, when estimating from a
series of values, it appears to be well known to us to weight them on the basis of their
significance, the examiner has provided no evidence of this feature in the art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007