Appeal 2006-2722
Application 10/209,626
Claim 1 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marriott in view of Simon.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), has the Examiner established a prima facie
case of obviousness based on the combination of Marriott and Simon?
Specifically, does the combination of Marriott and Simon teach or suggest
the determination of an inferred intent vector, by a matrix multiplication
applied to a vector of value properties, for each variable document of a set of
variable documents as a function of a calculated set of value properties?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants have invented a system for fitness evaluation of an
automatically generated set of variable data documents in which a creator’s
desire is reflected in a set of relative weights applied to an intent vector. For
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 14, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 11, 2006, a Reply Brief was filed May 25,
2006 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in
the communication mailed July 18, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013