Appeal No. 1999-1793
Application 08/161,798
Appellants argue that the Examiner has improperly read
limitations into claim 5 (e.g., Br7-8; RBr5-6). To the extent this
is so, we address only the actual limitations of claim 5.
The Examiner's3 discussion of Veldhuis (FR5) is very cursory and
does not correlate the actual limitations of claim 5 to the
disclosure of Veldhuis. Therefore, we begin by making findings
regarding the contents of Veldhuis and the differences between
Veldhuis and the subject matter of claim 5.
Claim 5 recites "buffering audio signals in frames and
decomposing the digital signals into spectral components" and "a step
for dividing at least one frequency interval into a plurality of
frequency-units." A "unit" is a frequency interval (specification,
p. 8). Veldhuis does not disclose that the audio signal is buffered
in frames; however, while this limitation is considered either
inherent or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is not
argued and will not be addressed. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv)
(1997) (brief must specify the errors in the rejection). Veldhuis
discloses that the audio signal x(k) is applied to an analysis filter
bank 3 which divides the signal band of 0-22.05 kHz into P=26
3 As noted by Appellants (RBr2 n.1), there have been numerous
examiners during prosecution.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007