Appeal No. 2002-1743
Application No. 09/047,866
the DSP accessible storage function, but the examiner relies on Cleary for the DSP, the
examiner has shown why Mitel’s elements 18 are considered to be storage registers
and the examiner has explained why the artisan would have sought to modify Mitel by
Cleary’s teachings in order to insure that no errors occur in the measurement of the
peak value. Accordingly, it is not persuasive for appellants to merely contend that
Mitel’s filters 18 do not provide the DSP accessible storage functions as claimed.
Appellants contend that the microcontroller of claim 1 is coupled to the same two
registers as the DSP and reads the values in the two registers so as to adjust the
attenuators in the claimed circuit but that Mitel does not utilize the registers of peak
detect filter 18 to adjust the attenuators. Rather, argue appellants, the registers of peak
detect filter 18 are used to form an output signal representing the short term average
audio level and that this is different than the registers accessed by an external
microprocessor used to control the receive attenuators.
Appellants do appear to have a point here. Independent claims 1, 10 and 17, in
one form or another, all require something (a microcontroller in claims 1 and 10)
coupled to the first and second registers and to the first and second attenuators so as
to read values from the first and second register and adjust the first and second
attenuators in response to the values. The examiner’s position is that Mitel discloses
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007