Appeal No. 2001-1487
Application No. 08/970,824
misread the applied reference, and the analysis therefore is inaccurate.” (See answer at
pages 12-13.) It appears that the examiner maintains that the noise signal would be
the unknown multi-factor data. The examiner maintains that the “noise signal is in
general unknown, the purpose of that is to process the signal X(k) to compensate for
the noise and obtain the enhanced speech signal (col. 14 [sic, 4], line 63-col. 5, line
23).” While we agree with the examiner that the noise is determined, the examiner
does not address what the known multi-factor data would be in the model asserted to
be bilinear if the noise data is considered to be unknown data. With respect to
dependent claim 7, the examiner cites to column 9 of Chen which discusses the use of
linear prediction to determine a current speech sample yet the examiner does not
address the difference between the use of a linear model versus a bilinear model. (See
brief at pages 6, 12 and 13.) Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 6 and 12 and their dependent claims 7-11 and 13-17.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007