Appeal No. 2000-0454
Application 08/377,027
Appellant responds that there is no suggestion in Tabata
of an amen selector or a plagal cadence [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims on appeal. The examiner has not properly interpreted the
claims on appeal, and the examiner has made erroneous findings
with respect to the teachings of the applied references. We
first note that claim 1 recites that an orchestrator establishes
a first orchestration attribute for the first part of harmony and
a second orchestration attribute for the second part of harmony.
The examiner has offered a broad dictionary definition of
“orchestration” in order to interpret the claimed invention. The
specification, however, states that “For purposes of the present
invention, the orchestration of a synthesized tune refers to the
number and types of simulated instruments produced by the
synthesizer system to generate the audible tune” [specification,
page 2]. Thus, the specification has provided a specific
definition of the term “orchestration.” The examiner’s
interpretation of “orchestration” is inconsistent with the
assigned definition. The claims require that the number and
types of simulated instruments be established for each of the
harmony parts. There is no teaching or suggestion in either
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007