Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
sound processing.” It is appellant’s position that the plurality
of microphones positioned around the display of a computer in
combination with a sound processor controlled by a computer and
the adjustable relative time delay are separately patentable
features.
Gale clearly suggests the arrangement of microphones around
a display and appellant does not appear to pursue this argument.
Elko clearly teaches a computer-controlled sound processor.
Rather, the issue hinges on whether Elko teaches or suggests the
claimed “adjustable relative time delays.” The examiner’s
response to appellant’s argument that Elko’s taps are “fixed” is
to state that “[s]ince Elko has to aim the beam, the delays for
different transducers have to be relatively adjustable...”
[answer-page 8].
While the disclosure of Elko does appear to disclose aiming
a beam (viz., “to direct the mainlobe of the prescribed
directional response pattern toward the preferred location”-
column 3, lines 9-11), this direction to a preferred location
appears to be dependent on weighting signals of preceding
analysis time intervals (column 3, lines 4-7). Since the
examiner has not established that these “weighting signals” of
Elko are related to “adjustable relative time delays,” as
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007