Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 6, on page 8 of
the brief, reiterate the inapplicability of Lee to the
database of images approach claimed. Further, Appellants
assert that Lavagetto does not make up for the failure of Lee
to teach a database of images. Finally, on pages 9 and 10 of
the brief, Appellants argue that Lavagetto does not teach
“establishing some aspect of each image of the database which
relates to another image.”
In determining the scope of claim 6, we find that claim 6
does draw a distinction between Appellants database approach
and Lee’s approach. Claim 6 contains the limitations of
“preparing a database of images, each image corresponding to
one of said units of speech.” Claim 6 also calls for
“establishing some aspect of each image of said database which
relates to each other image in the data base.” We find the
scope of claim 6 to include that the database contains many
images and performs the function of corresponding units of
speech to images. Further, the scope of claim 6 is that all
of the images in the database have aspects established which
relate to aspects in all of the other images. This scope is
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007