Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
1344, 1348 and 1351, 213 USPQ 1, 5 and 7 (CCPA 1982).
We do note that in the portion of appellant’s argument
quoted supra, appellant admits that Elko teaches an “adaptive
adjustment” of a directional response pattern. Thus, it would
appear, contrary to appellant’s argument, that Elko at least
teaches a general adjustment of the beam width.
To whatever extent appellant is relying on the claim
language, “producing a specific direction and width sound
signal...,” appellant has not adequately explained why Elko does
not teach such a limitation in view of Elko’s disclosure at
column 2, lines 51-67.
Moreover, referring to Figure 6 of Elko, it can be seen that
the major lobe 610 is pointing toward a predefined location SL
while the noise sources NS1, NS2, NS3 and NS4 are pointing
towards nulls between the nodes so that the noise sources are not
picked up. Instant claim 1 does not preclude the noise sources
pointing to nulls. The claim requires that the signal processing
unit produce a “specific direction and width sound signal by
processing the electrical signals according to a specific sound
direction.” The “specific sound direction” in Elko is the
direction of the main node 610 toward sound source SL and a
specific direction and width sound signal is produced by the
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007