Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
The claim reads on Massaloux’s reception of speech signals during a time when the
system is not receiving the silence insertion descriptors.
Appellants’ allegations of “improper hindsight” at pages 30 through 32 of the Brief
do not address, and thus show no error in, the examiner’s findings directed to
motivation from the prior art for combining Massaloux and Wood (nor, for that matter, do
the remarks show error in the combination of the other references applied in the other
rejections). The remarks appear to be based on a lack of appreciation of what the
claims, in actuality, require.
We are therefore not persuaded that the rejection of representative claims 1 and
6 is in error. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-13, 15-18, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Massaloux and Wood.
Claims 23, 24, 26, 28-35, 37, and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Massaloux and
Tomoyuki)
Instant claim 23 requires, in the final clause, generating comfort noise “at least in
part” based on silence packets sampled from “one or both” of the passed voice data and
data representing non-voice data characteristics. The remainder of claim 23 we read as
consistent with receiving and differentiating between voice and non-voice data
segments, as described at page 3 of the instant specification and by Massaloux. A
majority of the non-voice data is not passed on to a destination. The claim is consistent
with generation and transmission of SID frames as described by Massaloux, whereby
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007