Appeal No. 2003-0315
Application 09/122,988
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Machinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Iida fails to teach “multiplying the
filtered monophonic surround signal with a time varying
coefficient signal related to the surround signals” as recited in
Appellant’s claim 9. See pages 5 through 7 of Appellant’s brief.
In response, the Examiner states that figure 6 clearly shows
that processors 14 and 15 control the operation of filters 4 and
5 by applying time varying coefficients to the filters 4 and 5.
See page 5 of the Examiner’s answer.
Appellant argues that there is no disclosure that Iida’s
CPU 15 multiplies the filtered monophonic surround signal with a
time varying coefficient signal related to the surround signals.
See page 3 of Appellant’s reply brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007