Appeal No. 2004-0858
Application No. 09/747,709
We are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument. The claims do
not recite an audio signal. They recite the creation of two
signal streams in an audio channel. Thus, it does not matter
whether the signals are “audio” or “electrical,” though the
difference is unclear where a sound, or a speech, is converted to
an electrical signal and the electrical signal then represents
“audio,” i.e., may be considered an audio signal. In any event,
it is clear that Vahatalo is also dealing with an audio channel,
since it describes echos in normal “speech” and that the acoustic
echo is between the earphone and microphone of a telephone set
(see, for example, column 1, lines 20-32). As the examiner
explains, at page 3 of the answer, it is clear that the signals
at RIN and SIN carry audio information, i.e., speech, and are
therefore, “audio signals.” The examiner further points to
column 5, lines 2-5, of Vahatalo, to show that signals at RIN and
SIN are “speech” signals and, therefore, audio.
Appellants argue, in the reply brief, that the examiner’s
characterization of an “audio channel” in Vahatalo is
unreasonable because an electrical connection that electrically
couples two speakers constitutes an “electrical channel” and not
an “audio channel,” as claimed. Appellants urge that the
definition of “audio” is sound and the definition of “channel” is
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007