Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
Tanioka 5,018,024 May 21, 1991
Mita et al. (Mita) 5,231,677 Jul. 27, 1993
Fujisawa 5,245,445 Sep. 14, 1993
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through
26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mita in view of Fujisawa and Tanioka.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 28,
mailed October 25, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
27, filed September 28, 1999) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 26, and 28.
The examiner relies on Mita in view of Fujisawa and Tanioka
to reject all of the pending claims. Mita, the examiner states
(Answer, page 5), does not use a probability-based classification
system to produce non-binary classification decisions. However,
the examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that probability-based
classification systems are well-known in the art, as evidenced by
Fujisawa, and thus would have been obvious for Mita's system for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007