Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
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 issues not argued by Appellant.
Appellant argues on page 4 of the brief that neither
Huttenlocher nor Horaud teaches a pseudo-inverse approach in
finding the hypothesized transformations as required by
Appellant's claim 13. The Examiner responds to this argument
on page 6 of the answer that it is well known in the art that
various matrix inversion techniques are utilized to solve
matrix equations for specific variables. We note that the
Examiner does not provide any evidence for the Examiner's
finding.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference, common knowledge or
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007