Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
examiner “has failed to provide proper motivation for combining three disparate
references.” (Brief at 16.)
We do not have the benefit of appellants’ reasoning in support of the bare
allegation. We are not persuaded of error in the examiner’s finding of motivation for
combining the references (Answer at 7-8). Nor have appellants explained how Alanara
may not be deemed to teach that the length of the hangover period is used in the
calculation of comfort noise parameters.
We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Massaloux, Wood, and Alanara.
Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Massaloux, Wood, and Koh)
Claim 8 requires that the adaptation algorithm of claim 1 approximates a
spectrum of input noise using a least mean square algorithm. We do not find
appellants’ bare allegation that the examiner “has failed to provide proper motivation for
combining three disparate references” (Brief at 18) to be persuasive. Nor have
appellants explained how Koh might fail to teach adaptive noise shaping based on a
least mean square algorithm. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Massaloux, Wood, and Koh.
-12-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007