Appeal No. 2002-0810
Application No. 09/014,871
characteristic shape of a sound, comparing the characteristic
shape with wavelet types, and selecting a wavelet type based on
the match with the characteristic shape.” With respect to claims
1 and 17, appellants argue (brief, page 8) that these claims “are
expressly limited to steps for varying or manipulating the
coefficients or parameters which characterize a wavelet
representation in order to generate a synthesized sound,” and
that “Faria does not teach or suggest such modification.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. As the title of the
Faria publication indicates, wavelet processing is used in music
analysis and synthesis. During such processing, Faria is even
concerned with perceptual factors (pages 951, 952 and 959),
parameters (pages 953 and 959) and a wavelet transform
(page 955). Notwithstanding such teachings in Faria, the wavelet
synthesis in this publication is performed on the wavelet itself,
and not on a selected wavelet type after a comparison operation
(claims 1 and 12) or on a representation of the wavelet
(claims 1, 12 and 17). Thus, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 8 through 13, 17, 19, 20, 27 and 29 is
reversed because Faria neither teaches nor would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the method steps outlined in
these claims. The obviousness rejections of claims 6, 16, 22
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007