Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v.
Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The examiner maintains that Su teaches the invention as recited in independent
claims 1 and 6. (Answer at pages 4-6.) The examiner states that appellant’s argument
concerning the filtering of the refinement segments is missing the point, and that once a
signal has been low passed filtered to find the initial pitch lag, the signal stays low pass
filtered in the succeeding steps and does not become unfiltered. (Answer at page 6.)
While we agree with the examiner about a filtered signal remaining filtered, it is the
express language of the claim that appellant has been arguing. The language of
independent claims 1 and 6 expressly recite “forming a filtered signal by filtering each
pitch refinement segment to extract a frequency component with a frequency
substantially corresponding to an initially determined pitch frequency of an associated
pitch detection segment.” (Emphasis added.) Here, we find that the step of low-pass
filtering of Su is with respect to the pitch detection segment and not the pitch refinement
segment. Whether the pitch refinement signal remains filtered at this point in the
process does not teach filtering after the step of forming the sequence of refinement
segments by filtering each refinement segment. Therefore, we agree with appellant that
Su does not teach every limitation as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Therefore,
we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 and their dependent
claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007