Appeal No. 2006-2952
Application No. 10/209,242
applied to a vector of value properties. The examiner also notes that Marriott teaches
constraints, captured as a set of relative weights, which are represented as a vector, a
function of the calculated set of value properties. The examiner also reiterates that
appellants have admitted in the specification that the invention uses known prior art
[answer, pages 9-13].
Appellants respond that although Marriott teaches that a variable x is solved using a
function fx, Marriott is void of any teachings or suggestions that the inferred intent vector
is the result of a matrix multiplication applied to a vector of value properties. Appellants
assert that the portion of Marriott relied on by the examiner is directed to solving one-
way constraints and not to the determination of an inferred intent vector for each variable
data document which is a function of the set of calculated set of value properties and
which is determined by a matrix multiplication applied to the vector of value properties.
Appellants also respond that the portion of the specification referred to by the examiner
relates to solving a constraint optimization problem which is not the equivalent of
determining an inferred intent vector for each variable data document as a function of the
set of calculated set of value properties as claimed. Appellants reiterate, therefore, that
they have made no admissions that the determination of an inferred intent vector for each
variable data document as a function of the set of calculated set of value properties was
well known [reply brief, pages 4-6].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for essentially the reasons
argued by appellants in the briefs. We agree with appellants that the mathematical
generalities taught by Marriott fail to teach or suggest the specifics of the determining
step of claim 1. The examiner finds that since the generic function fx of Marriott could
be any function, then the function fx could be a matrix multiplication applied to an
inferred vector as claimed. This finding does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The general use of mathematics in Marriott does not suggest to the artisan
that the specific relationship set forth in the determining step of claim 1 should be used.
This is a situation where the mere finding of a general teaching (fx) does not necessarily
support the finding that more specific forms of the function fx are, therefore, also taught.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007