Appeal No. 2003-0493
Application No. 09/108,716
Column 4, lines 55-61). Thompson’s method sequentially goes through the entire list to
determine matches (see e.g. Thompson, Column 5, lines 19-44). Thompson does not
teach that a subset, a selected number of elements, of either of the lists is used in the
process of determining matches. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 45, 46, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Thompson in view of Applicants’ disclosure of well-known art.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of Claims 32 through 34, 37 through 39, 42
through 44 and 47 through 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Thompson in view of Applicants’ disclosure of well-known art and Elischer. These
claims are ultimately dependent upon claims 31, 36, 41 or 46 and as such include the
limitation of a “window” as described supra. On page 10 of the answer, the examiner,
states that Elischer is relied upon to teach modifying Thompson to “calculate a value
based upon the recognition results from the primary and secondary lists when an exact
match fails to occur and compare the value with a predetermined value to allow a
determination to be made as to whether there is an approximate match between
recognition results from the primary and secondary lists.” The examiner has not shown
that Elischer teaches or suggests the limitation of a “window” as described supra.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 32 through 34, 37 through 39, 42
through 44 and 47 through 49 under 35 U.S.C § 103, as it contains the same
deficiencies as noted in the rejection of claims 31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 45, 46, and 50 under
35 U.S.C § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007