Appeal No. 1998-1317
Application No. 08/522,112
particular a priori data recited in claim 8. In his response
to Appellant’s argument alleging failure of Guberman to
disclose the elements of average size of words, sentences, and
paragraphs, distribution of word size, and average frequency
of letter occurrence, Examiner directs attention to a
subsequent discussion of Huttenlocher. Examiner’s discussion
of Huttenlocher begins of page 8 of the answer. In it,
Examiner does not directly address Appellant’s contention that
the references fail to disclose particular elements recited in
claim 8. Instead, Examiner appears to argue that certain
portions of the reference “corresponds well with claim 8.”
(Answer, page 9). Examiner specifically points to col. 3,
lines 46-65 of Huttenlocher which recites use of “image unit
shape dimensions, typeface, font, location in the document
image and frequency of image unit occurrence” (answer, page 9)
used by Huttenlocher to “identify significant image units.”
(Col. 3, line 63).
However, the cited section does not disclose the specific
elements alleged as missing by Appellant. A review of the
sections of Huttenlocher cited in the actual rejection of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007