Appeal No. 2006-1690
Application No. 10/154,185
from the true echo path" [answer, page 18]. According to the examiner, the
operational behavior of Park distinguishes between double-talk and channel
impulse response change [id.].
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 20 and 22. We
agree with appellants that Park does not disclose either expressly or inherently a
channel impulse response, let alone distinguishing between double-talk and
channel impulse response changes as claimed.1 We disagree with the examiner
that the change in echo path disclosed by Park reasonably corresponds to the
claimed channel impulse response changes. On this record, the examiner's
characterization that Park distinguishes between double-talk and channel
impulse response is, at best, speculative with no supporting evidence.
Regarding claim 2, appellants argue that Park fails to disclose that the
control logic replaces the adaptive filter weights with the non-adaptive filter
weights if a change in channel impulse response is detected. Appellants note
that Park does not mention "channel impulse response" or detecting a change in
channel impulse response as claimed [brief, pages 7 and 8]. The examiner
responds that steps 887 and 895 anticipate claim 2. Specifically, the examiner
contends that "when step 887 detects that the adaptive filter diverges slightly and
1 We further note that the drawings in the instant application do not appear to show detecting a
change in channel impulse response or distinguishing between double-talk and channel impulse
response changes as claimed. "The drawing[s] in a nonprovisional application must show every
feature of the invention specified in the claims." 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). In an ex parte appeal,
however, "the Board is basically a board of review − we review…rejections made by patent
examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001).
Consequently, we leave the issue of whether the appellants have satisfied the requirements of 37
C.F.R. § 1.83(a) to the examiner and the appellants.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007