Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
Moreover, the term “frame” may be considered by the artisan as inclusive of the
term “packet.” See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 15 Ed. at 348 (Aug. 1999) for the
partial definition of frame -- “A frame is a packet.” -- and at 610 for the partial definition
of packet -- “The specific native protocol of the data network may term the packet as a
packet, block, frame or cell.”1
Appellants’ claims do not specify details of transmission over a network. Nor
does appellants’ specification set out any special definition for the word “packet.” Wood
may thus be considered as merely cumulative evidence of obviousness with respect to
instant claim 1, as the claim terminology of “packets” does not require any structural
details different from the “frames” described by Massaloux. That definitions relating to
the term “packets” might be found that are narrower than those we have noted is
essentially irrelevant in the present inquiry. The broadest reasonable, rather than
narrowest, definition as understood by the artisan is relevant in our review of the
examiner’s rejections.
With respect to representative claim 6, appellants in the Reply Brief
mischaracterize the rejection that is applied. A broad but reasonable interpretation of
the claim requires receiving speech signals in the absence of silence insertion
descriptors containing spectrum information, with the open-ended (i.e., “comprising”)
form of the claim not excluding the use of silence insertion descriptors in other steps.
1 A copy of the pertinent portions of the McGraw-Hill and Newton’s Telecom references should
mail as an attachment to this decision.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007