Appeal No. 1998-2718
Application No. 08/373,937
vectors. Thus, it is clear that because Matsuba
does not supply the teaching missing from Fukumizu--
namely processing multiple feature data in parallel
with a single neural network--the combination of
these references does not and cannot render claim 26
obvious.
We agree with appellant’s argument. Accordingly, the 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 26 and dependent
claims 15 through 17 and 27 through 29 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 20, 21, 30 and 31, appellant argues (brief, page 14)
that “the neural networks 11, 12, and 13 of Lincoln’s Figure 1
. . . are, like Fukumizu’s neural networks, each coupled to
receive one and only one feature vector, and thus also cannot
process a
respective pair of multiple feature vectors.” We agree. In
summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 20, 21, 30
and 31 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 14, 18, 19,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007