Appeal No. 1998-0220
Application No. 08/297,437
arguments in support of claim 10 also attack the APA and Thompson individually, and
otherwise rely on the characterization of Thompson’s disclosure as a “sequential” filter
system. We have determined previously, as set forth supra, that the argument is
unavailing.
Appellants’ position in support of dependent claim 31 appears on page 26 of the
Brief. We do not deem the examiner’s statements on pages 18 and 19 of the Answer as
sufficient to show obviousness of the subject matter of dependent claim 31. However,
Thomson provides evidence that the artisan would have considered as obvious the
claimed subject matter including the further steps of storing digital signals in a one-
dimensional array and retrieving “one or more” of the signals stored in the array for use as
input to the first stage of the filters. (The signals shown in appellants’ prior art Figure 2 are
from an “external source.”) Thompson shows in Figure 2, and describes at column 2, line
64 through column 3, line 66, a one-dimensional array of data (28), and retrieving one
member of the array at a time for input to the associated digital filter. New data values
may be written into array 28 at the end of the present filtering for use in a next sequence of
filtering. Thus the artisan would have recognized the advantages in temporary storage of
the input signals in a one-dimensional array, for the ordered progression necessary in a
digital filtering operation.
The examiner adds Kobayashi to the combination of the APA and Thompson in the
rejection of claims 33 and 34. (See Answer, pages 9-10.) Appellants’ argument in regard
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007