Ex Parte Sheiman et al - Page 5

               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