Appeal No. 2001-0872
Application No. 08/880,137
prior to the probability and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine
unknown parameters if the other parameters were known.
We agree with appellants’ arguments concerning the teachings of Chou and their own teaching
(specification, page 34, lines 6 through 10) that a probability parameter is not to be equated with a
text image layout parameter. With respect to the teachings of Kopec, we find that the encoder
portion of the document recognition components (Figure 1) contains “synthesized box metric
attributes” (page 68). Appellants acknowledge (specification, page 42, lines 17 through 20) that
“the synthesized attributes (i.e., the box metrics) . . . describe the layout of the image constituents
and essentially characterize the layout of two image constituents in the image with respect to each
other; these coefficients are called the layout parameters.” It follows then that the teachings of
Kopec are concerned with layout parameters. Notwithstanding the disclosure of layout parameters
in Kopec, we find that Kopec is not concerned, however, with computing an unknown value for the
layout parameters as required by each of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 25 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is reversed because the additional teachings of Melen
do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Chou and Kopec.
DECISION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007