Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
separately patentable. To the extent that appellants’ remarks that we do not address
may be considered arguments as to why a claim is believed to be separately
patentable, we refer to the examiner’s findings set out in the Answer rather than
reproduce them herein.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-13, 15-18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Massaloux and
Wood)
Appellants contend that the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 is in error.
Appellants hold that the claims distinguish over the use of silence insertion descriptor
(SID) frames as described by Massaloux.
Massaloux teaches an improvement over prior art comfort noise generation (col.
1, l. 24 et seq.) that sent SID frames every 480 milliseconds of each inactive period.
Massaloux’s system (e.g., Fig. 2a) saves further bandwidth by sending SID frames only
when the frequency spectrum differs from the preceding SID frame. Col. 5, ll. 11-15.
Instant claim 1 recites identifying a plurality of silence packets derived from
speech data “received at a decoder side....” Appellants argue that, “[i]n contrast, the
SIDs of Massaloux are generated and transmitted at a transmit side and are therefore
not derived from speech data at a decode side.” (Brief at 9.) The examiner responds
that the relevant claim language does not preclude the use of silence description frames
as described by Massaloux. (Answer at 18.) Appellants respond, in turn, by reiterating
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007