Appeal No. 2004-0858
Application No. 09/747,709
a means of passage. Using appellants’ own definitions, an “audio
channel” would be merely a means for passing sound. Vahatalo is
concerned with echo cancellation in a telephone network. It is
clear that the purpose of a telephone network is to pass sound
from one telephone receiver to another telephone receiver, e.g.,
see Figure 1 of Vahatalo. In passing sound from one receiver to
another, it is clear that Vahatalo teaches an “audio channel,” as
broadly claimed. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ argument in this regard since it appears to be
reasonable to interpret the processing occurring in Vahatalo as
occurring in an “audio channel.”
Appellants further argue that Vahaltalo does not disclose
the claimed “delaying at least one of the signal sample streams
based, at least in part, on the time measured between the
detections.” It is the examiner’s position that this is taught
by Vahatalo in that calculator 44 is responsible for measuring
the time between detections of the two signal streams.
We agree with appellants. It is clear to us, from column 3,
lines 53-56, of Vahatalo, that the calculator 44 of Vahatalo
calculates the “correlation” between the stored samples of the
outgoing and incoming signals. We find no indication, anywhere
in Vahatalo, and the examiner has pointed to nothing, that
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007