Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
Appellant also alleges, without convincing elaboration, that Walker’s adder 16
(Fig. 2) cannot be considered a “compensation estimator” and that power amplifier 10
cannot be considered an “audio compensator” within the meaning of claim 14. We find
that the corresponding elements of Walker do all that is required by the language of
claim 14. Moreover, we know from appellant’s specification (e.g., claims 6 and 11) that
audio signal compensation does not require affecting the frequency response of the
system, but may only require a change in gain (e.g., amplification) of the audio signal.
We thus find the examiner has established a prima facie case for anticipation for
instant claim 14. However, we do not sustain the rejection of depending claim 15
because, as appellant argues, the rejection does not assert what elements of Walker
are deemed to correspond to the limitations of claim 15. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection
over Walker is thus sustained with respect to claim 14 and not sustained with respect to
claim 15.
Turning to the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Walker, we agree with appellant to the extent the examiner has not
provided sufficient evidence in support of the proposed modification. Claim 18 requires
that the audio compensator (power amplifier 10; Fig. 2 of Walker) is “a digital filter
having an adjustable frequency response and gain.” While digital filters were known,
the rejection does not provide a teaching or suggestion from the prior art for modifying a
circuit as shown in Walker’s Figure 2 such that the component in place of power
amplifier 10 is, or includes, a digital filter as claimed. We do not sustain the rejection of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007