Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 4
Application No. 08/771,469
Quality Digital Audio, J. Audio Eng. Soc'y, vol. 42, no. 10, 780-92 (Oct. 1994).
Claims 5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over NuWave in view of
Cool Edit and Broadhead further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,718,097 ("Uenoyama").
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over NuWave in view
of Cool Edit, Broadhead, and Uenoyama further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,248
("Date"). Claim 13 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over NuWave in view of
Cool Edit, Broadhead, Uenoyama, and Date further in view of U.S. Patent No.
4,939,782 ("Gambarcuta").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "NuWave does not
disclose . . . direct editing of encoded data [or] . . . a spectrum display with editing
points," (Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner makes the following assertions.
Cool Edit teaches a method of displaying the spectrum of frequency band
amplitudes and edit points in the examiner marked figure 1. The edit
points are points in time, depicted as a line on the time vs [sic] frequency
plot in figure 1. A division into discrete frequency bands is inherent in a
digital spectrum analysis. The amplitude values are depicted along that
line by different colors. Each edit point thus has a plurality of frequency
band amplitudes associated with it, depicted by the colors along the edit
point line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to use this type of display in any audio editing
system, because it allows one to see which frequencies are prevalent as
discussed in the "Spectral Viewing: section of Cool Edit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007