Appeal No. 2002-1689
Application No. 08/796,285 Page 6
sound decoding apparatus having cascaded decoders expanding the
number of channels, that is to say, each decoder provides a
greater number of outputs than number of inputs) are not recited
in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification
are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” Appellant acknowledges
(brief, page 6) that as shown in figure 6 of Embree, sum-
difference matrix 406 could be considered a decoder having two
input channels and four output channels, but that adaptive matrix
448 does not provide an increase in the number of channels as
required by claim 30.
We find that in Embree (figure 6) adaptive matrix 448
receives 4 inputs L, R, C, S from sum-difference matrix 406, and
four inputs from Look Up Tables (LUTS) 440, 442, 444, and 446).
Adaptive matrix 448 has four outputs; i.e., Lout, Rout, Cout, and
Sout. Thus, we find that adaptive matrix 448 does not have more
outputs than inputs, as required by claim 30, which recites that
each of the decoders has two inputs and three outputs.
Accordingly, we find that Embree does not anticipate claim 30, as
advanced by the examiner. The rejection of claim 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is therefore reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007