Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the
argument shall specify the errors in the
rejection and, if appropriate, the specific
limitations in the rejected claims which
are not described in the prior art relied
on in the rejection, and shall explain how
such limitations render the claimed subject
matter unobvious over the prior art. If
the rejection is based upon a combination
of references, the argument shall explain
why the references, taken as a whole, do
not suggest the claimed subject matter, and
shall include, as may be appropriate, an
explanation of why features disclosed in
one reference may not properly be combined
with features disclosed in another
reference. A general argument that all the
limitations are not described in a single
reference does not satisfy the requirements
of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not under any burden to
raise and/or consider such issues.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Crane, Boone and Peppers. Appellants’
claim 15 recites “wherein the Hough transform generating step
comprises calculating an annular correlation.” On page 7 of
the answer, the Examiner states that Peppers teaches
calculating an annular correlation in column 11, lines 9-10,
in that circular slits used for correlation would yield an
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007