Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
in light of the specification." Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon
Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d
1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Orthokinetics, Inc. v.
Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir.
1986)).
The Examiner rejected claim 3 as indefinite because it
provides that the fractal dimension is the "ratio of the
perimeter of the object relative to the surface area of the
object" but does not recite actually determining the ratio of
the perimeter relative to the surface area. Claim 3 is
reproduced as follows, with emphasis added to the relevant
language:
3. The target recognition apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
a fractal dimension of objects within the digitized
image is obtained in one or more of said chains, the fractal
dimension being a ratio of the perimeter of the object
relative to the surface area of the object.
The Examiner has not explained why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would be unable to understand the bounds of
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007