Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 5
Application No. 08/771,469
(Id.) The appellant argues, "the spectral graph of the Cool Edit reference does not
include an amplitude of each of the plurality of frequency subbands of a subband
encoded audio signal as a function of time. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"control logic operative to generate a spectral graph of the subband encoded audio
signal, the spectral graph including an amplitude of each of the plurality of frequency
subbands of the subband encoded audio signal as a function of time. . . ." Similarly,
independent claim 17 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "computer
readable instructions recorded on the storage medium, the instructions operative to
generate a spectral graph of the subband encoded audio signal received by the
receiver, the spectral graph including an amplitude of each one of the plurality of
frequency subbands of the subband encoded audio signal as a function of time. . . ."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007