Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
the assertion that the claims distinguish over the generation of SID frames on an
encoder side. To the extent that appellants may argue that Massaloux fails to teach
adapting to the plurality of silence packets derived from the speech data “by using an
adaptation algorithm that adapts with time,” as recited by claim 1, we conclude that
appellants have not shown error in the examiner’s finding that Massaloux teaches the
limitation at column 5, lines 40 through 65.
Further, appellants’ arguments with respect to the instant claimed “packets” as
opposed to Massaloux’s disclosed “frames” are not well taken. Massaloux refers to the
data as “frames.” The examiner has provided the Wood reference as evidence in
support of the position that the artisan would have found it obvious to packetize the
frames for transmission over packet sending networks.
A “frame” in the telecommunications arts may be defined as “[a]n elementary
block of data for transmission over a network or communications system.” McGraw-Hill
Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Fifth Ed. at 800 (1994). A “packet” may be
defined in the relevant art as “[a] short section of data of fixed length that is transmitted
as a unit.” Id. at 1430. Consistent with the references provided, and with appellants’
description of prior art silence suppression at page 3 of the instant specification,
sending the frames described by Massaloux in the form of packets would have been
merely a well known, widely used, and obvious expedient for transmission of data from
point A to point B.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007