Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
Claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Massaloux, Wood, Koh, and Official
Notice)
Claim 10 requires that the (least mean square) adaption algorithm performs an
internal check to ascertain that the input noise is within 6 dB of a noise floor.
Appellants’ general and unsupported allegations (Brief at 19-20) do not show error in
the rejection, as by demonstrating that the claimed threshold would not have been
obvious in view of the knowledge of the ordinary artisan.
We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Massaloux, Wood, Koh, and Official Notice.
Claims 27 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Massaloux, Tomoyuki, and Wood)
Appellants argue (Brief at 15-16) that claims 27 and 38 are improperly rejected
because the statement of rejection did not list Tomoyuki as a reference. Appellants are
correct that Tomoyuki should also be listed, as the claims depend from claims 23 and
32, respectively. However, the examiner refers to the rejection of claims 23 and 32 in
the statement of the rejection (Final Rejection at 5), which provided notice that
Tomoyuki was material to the rejection. Claims 23 and 32 are rejected over Massaloux
and Tomoyuki.
Claim 27 recites packetizing the revised communication information. The
examiner relies on Wood for the teaching of packetizing. As we have addressed with
respect to the requirements of claim 1, we find sufficient evidence for the suggestion to
-13-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007