Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
frequency coefficients, that this is known to mean the use of a
low pass filter, and that this is just the way appellant performs
the process. Accordingly, the examiner has set forth a
reasonable basis for finding the claimed subject matter obvious
and the burden shifted to appellant to rebut the examiner’s case.
Yet, appellant never responds to this reasoning in the reply
brief. Accordingly, since, for whatever reason, we have no
response from appellant, we will sustain the rejection of claim
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 32, appellant argues that the step of
receiving comprises receiving activity metrics and the step of
converting comprises processing the motion data in accordance
with the activity metrics, but that the header of Igarashi, which
the examiner relies on for a teaching of “activity metrics,” is
not applicable. Specifically, appellant argues that, in
accordance with page 19 of the specification, activity metrics
include, for example, “entropy, noise, frequency content, etc.”
In our view, the examiner correctly points out that one
cannot read limitations into the claims and that claim 32 does
not require “entropy, noise, frequency content, etc.” It merely
requires “activity metrics.” As the examiner reasonably
explains, at pages 12-13 of the answer, activity metrics
-15-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007