Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
a common portion extraction section for extracting from the at least
one common portion between the two point sets an extracted common
portion representing a common structure, based on maximizing the common
portion length calculated by said common portion length calculation section
while minimizing the cumulative distance information calculated by said
cumulative distance calculation section.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Huang et al. (Huang) 5,058,200 Oct. 15, 1991
Eisenberg et al. (Eisenberg) 5,436,850 Jul. 25, 1995
(effective filing date Jul. 11, 1991)
Robb et al. (Robb) 5,568,384 Oct. 22, 1996
(filed Oct. 13, 1992)
Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Robb and Eisenberg with regard
to claims 1 and 31, adding Huang to this combination with regard to claims 5, 6, 12, 16,
20, 24, 28, 30 and 32.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse as it is our view that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007