Appeal No. 97-1622
Application No. 08/109,179
In regard to independent claim 4, Appellants argue on
page 26 of the Brief that this claim calls for the input space
quantization feature recited in independent claim 1 and relies
on previous arguments as to lack of teaching of this feature
in DARPA or Hanson. Appellants further contend that claim 4
calls for classification means, counting means, possibility
distribution generation means, determination means, and
possibility-of attribution determination means. These claimed
means are also recited in claim 5 which is dependent on claim
1. On pages 24 and 25 of the brief, appellants contend that
Hanson does not disclose the specific classification means
recited nor any of the other recited means.
The examiner has applied the same rejection to
independent claim 4 as to claim 1 (answer, pages 4 and 12).
We find that independent claim 4, although directed to a
different embodiment than claim 1, includes a recitation of
quantization similar to that of independent claim 1 and agree
with appellants’ arguments at page 26 of the brief that
neither DARPA nor Hanson provide such a feature as claimed.
In addition, claim 4 adds limitations directed to clustering,
possibility distribution, and possibility-of attribution
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007