Appeal No. 2002-2207
Application 09/057,729
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the combined teachings of Satoh and
Kroeker [answer, pages 3-5]. With respect to representative,
independent claim 1, appellants argue that the claimed invention
recites that normalization coefficients are calculated and stored
in a buffer for each speech frame whereas in Satoh, normalization
coefficients are only calculated for noise frames and only the
noise frames get stored in the buffer. Appellants note that the
claimed invention has the advantage that there is no need to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007