Appeal No.1997-0898
Application No. 08/281,879
obviousness of adding a reliability measure to determine which
of the two downsampling techniques disclosed by APA is to be
selected has not been addressed. Since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior
art, it is our opinion that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent
claims 2, 7, 10, 13, and 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 2, 7,
10, 13, 16 nor of claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 17 dependent
thereon, based on the combination of APA and Murdock.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of dependent claims 4, 9, 11, 15, and 18 in which the
Rao reference is added to the combination of APA and Murdock, we
do not sustain this rejection as well. It is apparent from the
Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 7) that the Rao reference is
relied on solely to address the claimed clustering and distance
measure limitations. We find nothing, however, in the
disclosures of Rao which would overcome the innate deficiencies
of APA and Murdock discussed supra.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007