Appeal No. 2000-1425
Application No. 07/921,508
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Graupe in view of Goodings, Harris, and Widrow.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 36,
mailed March 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
33, filed September 25, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 37,
filed April 30, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4, 6 through
9, and 11 through 18.
Each of independent claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 18 includes a
user-controlled activation means for activating adaptation of the
filter at a time controlled by the user without changing the
operating characteristics of the filter except as a result of the
adaptation. The examiner (Answer, page 3) refers to Graupe's
manual gain change and on-off switch as the claimed user
controlled activation means. In Graupe, the switch control means
33 responds to a change in the gain of amplifier component 16 or
to a turn-on condition of the amplifier component and moves
switches S1 and S2 into their identification configuration state.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007