Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
of the Reply Brief appears to not come to grips with the
merits of the examiner’s position at page 8 of the Answer. It
should be noted that the claim does not recite a constrained
mathematical function at all nor is a mathematical function that
constrains the amount or nature of the data recited in any
manner.
This constrained function limitation of claims 1 and 11
appears to be a generic recitation of the more specific feature
recited in dependent claim 4 relating to the Markov Random Field
(MRF) which is detailed in independent claims 21 and 24 on
appeal. Finally, the advantages of the invention argued at
the bottom of page 2 of the Reply Brief are merely advantages
relating to the disclosed invention and not any advantages that
may be fairly attributed to the extremely broad recitation of the
features in the questioned clause of claims 1 and 11 on appeal.
Since appellants have presented no arguments as to dependent
claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 within this first stated rejection, the
rejection of them likewise is affirmed.
Turning next to the rejection of independent claims 21 and
24 under the second stated rejection, we note that appellants
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007