Appeal No. 2006-1690
Application No. 10/154,185
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 4-7, 9, 13, 15-17,
and 24-26. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 10-
12, 14, 18-23, and 27. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.);
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Park [answer, pages 3-6 and 14-17]. Regarding
claims 1, 8, and 10, appellants argue that Park does not disclose the limitation of
independent claim 1 reciting that if double-talk is detected, the control logic
suspends replacement of the non-adaptive filter weights before portions of the
first signal are cancelled by the non-adaptive filter [brief, pages 3-5]. Appellants
contend that Park does not disclose detecting double-talk. Specifically,
appellants argue that comparing the Echo Return Loss Enhancement value
(ERLE) of the adaptive filter (ERLE1) with a threshold TE in block 855 in Fig. 8B
does not disclose detecting double-talk [brief, pages 3 and 4; reply brief, page 2].
Rather, appellants contend that the power-based measures ERLE1 and ERLE2
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007