Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Oppenheim, “Computation of Spectra with Unequal Resolution Using
the Fast Fourier Transform,” Proc. IEEE, Feb. 1971, pp. 299-301.
Kleijn, “Speech Coding and Synthesis,” Elsevier Science, 1995, pp.
36-39.
Elder, “Audio Coding Using a Psychoacoustic Pre- and Post-Filter,”
Proceedings ICASSP, 2000, pp. 881-884.
Härmä, “Frequency-Warped Signal Processing for Audio
Applications,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 48, No. 11, Nov. 2000, pp. 1011-
1031.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elder and Kleijn.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elder, Kleijn, and Härmä.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elder, Kleijn, Härmä, and Oppenheim.
We make reference to the Brief and Answer for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner.
We affirm.
THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant focuses on the
coding sequence described in Kleijn and alleges that such sinusoidal code is
not the same as the claimed estimating the sinusoidal code data (Br. 9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013