Appeal 2007-0333
Application 09/966,802
cutoff frequency is disengaged and second cutoff frequency is engaged is
reasonable given the scope and breadth of the claim language.
For at least the above reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, and 19-21.
Regarding claim 22, Appellants argue that Sakata does not disclose
inaudibly switching one or more filters on and/or off as claimed (Br. 7-8).
The Examiner responds that Sakata teaches an interpolation technique to
avoid noise. Such a teaching, according to the Examiner, implies inaudibly
switching (Answer 5). Appellants respond that the Examiner merely
referred to a noise problem in the prior art, and that Sakata’s solution could
avoid noise, yet still be audible (Reply Br. 6).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. At the outset,
we note that the limitation calling for “inaudibly switching one or more
filters on and/or off during processing of an input signal” is merely a desired
result of the recited coefficient migration step. That is, the term “by” in line
3 of the claim indicates that inaudibly switching the at least one filter is
merely intended to occur as a result of coefficient migration.
With this construction, we turn to Sakata. We first note that
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of Sakata regarding
the coefficient migration step in lines 4 and 5 of the claim – an interpretation
that we find reasonable. Accordingly, the issue before us is whether
Sakata’s coefficient migration is capable of performing the intended result,
namely inaudibly switching one or more filters on and/or off during
processing of an input signal. For the following reasons, we conclude that
Sakata’s is capable of performing this intended result.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013