Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
We fail to see how any of these cited portions of the reference provides for calculating
a number of points paired to form a common portion and then accumulating distances
between these paired points, as claimed.
We agree with appellants [principal brief-page 6] that Robb appears to be
measuring distances between sampled points to a surface of a graphical figure since the
data compared is only graphical. Therefore, it is unclear how the examiner is interpreting
the Robb disclosure to provide for “distances between the points paired with each other to
form the at least one common portion between the two point sets.” As appellants point out,
at page 8 of the principal brief, the instant claimed “invention calculates the distances
between discrete points in the data sets, i.e., a point-to-point calculation, not from one
point to a surface, as taught by Robb.”
Not claimed, but noted as a point of understanding, the data points in the instant
invention represent the arrangement of elements in a chemical substance, not just a three-
dimensional structure.
Furthermore, as appellants state, convincingly, instant claim 1 recites that the two
point sets are “sequenced points.” This is different from the uniformly sampled points
“used to register the match surface in the system taught by Robb...because
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007