Appeal No. 20004-0226
Application No. 09/216,184
this one example shows an embodiment which meets the instant claim language
because this video frame of Figure 21 of Azadegan shows an interest matrix having a
plurality of entries, “wherein each of the plurality of entries comprises a non-zero
number . . . , and none of the plurality of entries takes on a zero value,” as claimed.
Unlike independent claims 14 and 21, independent claim 1 does not preclude an
embodiment wherein, in some instances, the entries in the interest matrix are all non-
zero, although, at other times, a zero entry may occur. Dependent claims 3, 4 and 8 will
fall with independent claim 1, as they are not argued separately.
Regarding dependent claims 5-7, the rejection of which under 35 U.S.C. §103
relies on Azadegan in combination with Sun, we will also sustain the rejection of these
claims because, while appellants make general allegations, at pages 5-6 of the principal
brief, about no prima facie case and lack of motivation, no specific arguments going to
the merits of the claim limitations and the applied references are made, the whole
argument apparently relying on the argument re claim 1, relative to no showing of non-
zero entries in the interest matrix. Since we find that Azadegan does suggest the
limitations of independent claim 1 regarding the non-zero entries, for the reasons supra,
the rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007