Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
rationale of combinability and that the examiner has utilized
prohibited hindsight.
Appellants' arguments in the brief and reply brief appear to
continually urge that there is no teaching per se of linear pulse
code modulated formats or LPCM, the emphasis being upon the
absence of the word "linear" as expressly taught among the four
references relied upon by the examiner. The examiner essentially
acknowledges this with respect to the statement at the bottom of
page 8 of the answer at least with respect to Farhangi, but the
paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 and the other last noted
paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 offers persuasive lines of
reasoning that it would have been obvious for the artisan to have
used linear pulse code modulated formats as a common type format
since the collective teachings and showings of the references
clearly utilize mixing pulse code modulated (PCM) audio
information for output to CODECs. Appellants' brief and reply
brief do not argue the basic thrust of the examiner's position,
which appears to be that it would have been obvious to use LPCM
over the conventional PCM that is actually taught among the
references. From our detailed study of the references relied
upon, we agree with the examiner's views and conclude that there
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007