Appeal No. 2003-0774
Application 09/841,764
independency between the speech coding modes and the silence
description coding mode. Appellants argue that the portion of
the examiner’s rejection quoted above represents an unsupported
conclusion made by the examiner. Specifically, appellants argue
that failure to teach against something is not necessarily a
teaching in favor of it. Appellants note that in conventional
speech signal processing, a silence description coding mode uses
data from previous and future speech signals and is not
independent of previous coded speech segments as claimed. With
respect to Delargy, appellants argue that the operation disclosed
therein is directly dependent upon the coding of the audio signal
in the previous frame which is contrary to the claimed invention
[brief, pages 9-16].
The examiner responds by asserting that “the prior art of
record teaches switching operation at the instant periods of
silence, without involving or requiring any consideration of
previous operations. Changing operations at periods of silence
avoids interfering with the quality of speech, and each decision
is made independently of prior coding” [answer, page 17].
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007