Appeal No. 2002-1197
Application 09/131,167
It is not clear whether appellant is describing a known problem
in the art or a problem which he discovered. This fact may have
a bearing on the obviousness analysis; e.g., if the saturation
problem was known, the issue would be whether it would have been
obvious to freeze the coefficients when the source signal was of
a magnitude that would cause saturation. In any response to this
opinion, appellant is required to state whether the problems
described in this paragraph on page 3 were known to those in the
art of echo cancelation. It will be sufficient if appellant
admits, denies, or states that he is without knowledge of whether
the described problems were known in the art.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8-28, and 32-37 is sustained.
The rejection of claims 5-7, 29-31, and 38-41 is reversed.
A new ground of rejection has been entered as to claims 1-24
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the Examiner’s rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, "A new ground of rejection shall not
be considered final for purposes of judicial review."
- 16 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007