Appeal No. 2004-0858
Application No. 09/747,709
9-page 3). The examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious “to apply the technique used for echo location in
transmission lines in systems having acoustic echo, such as
computer/telephone speakerphones” (Paper No. 9-page 3). The
examiner applies this reasoning to claims 1 and 12. As to claims
19 and 22, the examiner alleges that while Vahatalo does not
disclose a machine readable storage medium for executing the
method, it would have been obvious “to perform signal processing
methods through the use of microcomputers where the method steps
are instructions on machine readable storage media. The use of
microcomputers adds efficiency and speed to the process” (Paper
No. 9-page 3).
Appellants’ position is that Vahatalo does not disclose two
or more signal streams created in an audio channel because RIN
and SIN are “ports,” not signals, as alleged by the examiner. We
think it is clear that the examiner meant the signals on those
ports, with RIN indicating the speech signal from speaker A at
port RIN and SIN indicating the signal received from speaker B at
port SIN. (See column 4, line 66 to column 5, line 4).
Appellants argue further that Vahatalo’s signals are
“electrical” signals, not audio signals and, so, the signals
would not be signals created in the audio channel, as claimed.
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007