Appeal 2007-0333
Application 09/966,802
Even if we adopt Appellant’s construction of “disengaging” and
“engaging” respectively,”1 our conclusion holds. For example, a low pass
filter whose cutoff frequency is increased from a lower to a higher frequency
effectively renders the low pass filter with the first, lower cutoff frequency
ineffective. Prior to changing the cutoff frequency, the low pass filter at the
first cutoff frequency passes signals with frequencies lower than the cutoff
frequency. Signals higher than the first, lower cutoff frequency are
attenuated. After raising the cutoff frequency using Sakata’s technique, the
low-pass filter will now pass frequencies higher than the first, lower cutoff
frequency. By allowing more frequencies to pass, the low pass filter with
the second, higher cutoff frequency effectively supplants the low pass filter
with the first, lower cutoff frequency. Simply put, the low pass filter with
the first, lower cutoff frequency is rendered ineffective (i.e., “disengaged”)
for all practical purposes. Likewise, the low pass filter with the second,
higher cutoff frequency is “engaged” for all practical purposes.
We also agree with the Examiner that Sakata (1) disengages the filter
at the end of the signal segment, and (2) engages the filter at the beginning
of the signal segment essentially for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
Significantly, the claims do not specify the exact contours or bounds of what
constitutes a signal segment apart from broadly reciting “a segment of a
signal.” Accordingly, the Examiner’s interpretation of such a segment as
corresponding to those signal samples present when the filter with the first
1 Appellants define “disengaging” as “changing a filter to a neutralized or
ineffective state” (Br. 4), and “engaging” as “changing a filter from a
neutralized or ineffective state” (Br. 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013