Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
negative likelihood value is not a probability per se, we agree with the
examiner that a broad but reasonable interpretation of the language of the
claim reads upon the “negative significance” explicitly disclosed by Zhilyaev
at col. 10, lines 59 and 61. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 4-6 for essentially the same reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer.
As per claim 18:
Appellant notes that dependent claim 18 includes a limitation wherein
“setting a likelihood value comprises setting a negative value for the
likelihood” [brief, page 9]. Appellant argues that Zhilyaev does not teach
nor suggest this limitation for the same reasons provided above with respect
to the similar limitation of claim 4 [id.].
Accordingly, because we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 4-6, we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 18 for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 4.
As per claims 20-22:
28
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007