Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
pages 4-5]. More particularly, appellant argues that the
angles output from table look-up 39 in Ward are not calculated
angles as recited in claim 8, and the comparison of “angles”
in Ward relates to a single point and not to two different
sample points as claimed [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We agree with the position argued by appellant. The
reference angles which are stored in table look-up 39 in Ward
are not based on any noise candidate coordinate points, but
rather, are theoretical values which determine whether
distance ratios associated with each noise candidate
coordinate point exceed some predetermined value. The values
stored in table look-up 39 are unrelated to the calculated
angles of successive noise candidate points in Ward.
Therefore, since the angle comparison in Ward is not between
angles for consecutive noise candidate points as recited in
claim 8, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 or of
claims 9-13 which are grouped therewith.
With respect to independent claim 14, the examiner
indicates how the two conditions set forth in steps (f) and
(g) are disclosed by Lipscomb [answer, pages 5 and 6].
Appellant’s only argument with respect to this claim is that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007