Appeal No. 2002-1197
Application 09/131,167
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellant argues several groups of claims separately (Br7):
(1) claims 1-4, 8-28, and 32-37 stand or fall together;
(2) claims 5, 7, 29, and 31 stand or fall together; (3) claim 6
stands alone; (4) claim 30 stands alone; (5) claim 38 stands
alone; and (6) claims 39-41 stand or fall together.
New ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and/or
second paragraph, because claims 1, 13, and 17 contain purely
functional language that either lacks enabling disclosure for the
scope of the claim or is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites "wherein filter coefficients of said
adaptive filter are updated only when a prevailing value of the
output signal of said microphone is within a predetermined range
of possible output signal values." Claim 13 recites an almost
identical limitation. Claim 17 recites "wherein variables of
said adaptive system are updated only when a prevailing value of
the source signal is within a predetermined range of possible
source signal values." These limitations are purely functional
because no structure or "means" has been recited to support the
function. In Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker,
329 U.S. 1, 71 USPQ 175 (1946), the Supreme Court held invalid an
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007