Appeal No. 2004-2099
Application No. 09/487,191
at page 5), "Claim 1 recites using a distribution of perturbed
data to generate an estimate of a distribution of the original
data" (brief at page 5), "there has been no teaching cited for
perturbing a distribution of values" (brief at page 6), and "[n]o
distribution of perturbed data is ever mentioned or suggested"
(reply brief at page 1).
After reviewing the Examiner's rebuttal at pages 8-10 of the
answer, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Although the
Tendick reference teaches using data perturbation to protect
privacy (see the last paragraph of page 48), we find that neither
the Fayyad patent, the Tendick reference, nor their combination
teaches "using a distribution of the perturbed data, generating
at least one estimate of a distribution of the original data."
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 7-13 and 23 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 7-13 and 23.
Accordingly, we affirm.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007