Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
the second condition of claim 14 (whether or not the absolute
value of V equals the absolute value of V ) is not taught ori i-1
suggested in Lipscomb [brief, pages 5-6].
We agree with the examiner’s rejection as it applies to
claim 14. The claimed condition of 2 = 180 would correspond1 o
to a straight line being drawn in Lipscomb. Since Lipscomb
performs a cross product of consecutive vectors, the cross
product of a straight line of vectors in Lipscomb would equal
zero because the sine 180 is zero. Since zero would be belowo
any threshold set in Lipscomb, all points P , P and so forthi i+1
on a straight line would be removed as noise coordinate points
[note Figures 2A-2D].
Since all candidate points in Lipscomb would be removed under
the condition of a straight line being drawn, the conditions
set forth in claim 14 would be satisfied in Lipscomb. Since
the examiner’s analysis appears correct, and since appellant
has not offered any explanation as to why this analysis is not
correct, we will sustain the rejection of claim 14 based on
this record.
In summary, the rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007