Appeal 2006-2722
Application 10/209,626
invention, neither Marriott nor Simon discloses the determination of an
inferred intent vector for each variable data document that is a function of a
calculated set of value properties.
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Marriott, relied on by the
Examiner as disclosing the claimed inferred intent vector determination,
coincides with that of Appellants. We agree with Appellants that, at best,
Marriott discloses (page 504) various types of algorithms for solving one-
way constraints, the algorithms being formulated as directed graphs in the
context of constraint graphs. We find that this disclosure falls well short of
teaching or suggesting the claimed determining of an inferred intent vector
as a function of a calculated set of value properties, let alone the claimed
inferred intent vector determination operation of applying a matrix
multiplication to a vector of value properties.
Although the Examiner attempts (Answer 7, 8, and 11) to show a
correspondence between the constraint graph described by Marriott and the
claimed inferred intent vector determination involving a matrix
multiplication applied to a value properties vector, we find the record before
us totally devoid of any evidence to support such a conclusion. In particular,
the Examiner has produced no evidence which would indicate that the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that the
function fx described by Marriott could have been formulated to include a
function of matrix multiplication applied to a vector of value properties.
It does not matter how strong the Examiner’s convictions are that the
claimed invention would have been obvious, or whether we might have an
intuitive belief that the claimed invention would have been obvious within
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013