Appeal No. 97-1622
Application No. 08/109,179
calculated neighborhood to a predetermined degree to find a
better match among the stored cases as well as the claimed
similarity determination on the basis of that predetermined
degree of enlarging .
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 capable of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966). In regard to the Hanson reference which is
relied on by the examiner as teaching the quantization feature
of claim 1, Appellants argue on pages 19 and 20 of the Brief
that Hanson does not disclose a quantization of input space in
accordance with a required precision of single output data and
further that Hanson merely analyzes measured data to obtain
frequency of appearance among past accumulated data.
Appellants recite in claim 1
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007