Appeal 2006-2722
Application 10/209,626
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Neither circumstance is a substitute for
evidence lacking in the record before us.
We also find to be without merit the Examiner’s contention (Answer
12-13) that Appellants have admitted in the Specification that the claimed
features of determining an inferred intent vector for a variable data
document as a function of a set of calculated value properties use algorithms
which exist in the prior art. We agree with Appellants (Br. 7; Reply Br. 9)
that the extent of the admissions in the Specification is the application of
well known constraint algorithms to a constraint optimization problem after
the problem has been modeled according to the inferred intent vector
determination features set forth in appealed claim 1.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, since the Simon reference
does not overcome the deficiencies of Marriott discussed above, the
references, even if combined, do not support the obviousness rejection. We,
therefore, do not sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of appealed claim 1.
REVERSED
KIS
BASCH & NICKERSON, L.L.P.
1777 PENFIELD ROAD
PENFIELD, NY 14526
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013