Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Accordingly, we will also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 16-17, 19 and 23-25 as being unpatentable over
Horiguchi in view of Robinson.
III. Lastly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6, 18 and 20-
22 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Horiguchi in view of Zhilyaev
[answer, pages 7-10]. We address these claims infra as separately argued
by appellant in the briefs.
As per claims 4-6:
Since appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated
these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will consider
dependent claim 4 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues that dependent claim 4 includes a limitation “wherein
the likelihood value is a negative value” [brief, page 8]. Appellant notes that
fig. 4 of Zhilyaev illustrates a standard normal distribution curve, which is
used for significant word selection [id.]. Appellant asserts that each of the
25
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007