Appeal 2007-0333
Application 09/966,802
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Sakata fully meets the invention as set forth in the claims on
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
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. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Sakata (Answer 3-4). Regarding claims 1
and 19, Appellants argue that Sakata does not disengage a filter at the end of
the signal segment as claimed. Rather, Appellants contend that Sakata
merely changes the cutoff frequency of a single filter, but never disengages
the filter (i.e., neutralizes the filter or renders the filter ineffective).
According to Appellants, Sakata’s filter remains operational despite cutoff
frequency changes (Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellants further argue that Sakata does not engage a filter at the
beginning of a signal segment as claimed in claims 7 and 20. Appellants
contend that merely changing cutoff frequency in Sakata does not engage the
filter (i.e., change the filter from a neutralized or ineffective state) (Br. 5-6;
Reply Br. 4-5). Appellants also argue with respect to claims 13 and 21 that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013