Appeal 2007-0537
Application 10/102,902
Independent Claims 13, 14, 15, and 163
With respect to independent claims 13, 14, 15, and 16, Appellants
simply argue the claimed “features are similar to the features discussed
above with respect to claim 1.” (App. Br. 18-21.) In response, we have
reconsidered the arguments Appellants made with respect to claim 1, and
again conclude they are not convincing for the reasons previously given.
(See supra pp. 10-14.)
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-26
With respect to each of these claims, Appellants merely state that the
references do not teach or suggest the additional limitation, recite the
limitation, and conclude by stating the Examiner’s position is “flawed as a
matter of fact and as a matter of law.” (App. Br. 22-29.) Appellants provide
no explanation why this is so with respect to any of these claims.4 (Id.)
The Examiner found each recited limitation met by the references.
(Answer 7-11.) We have considered the Examiner’s findings with respect to
these limitations. Lacking any argument by Appellants why the Examiner’s
findings are flawed, we agree with the Examiner that the references teach or
3 Claims 13 and 16 do not recite “fragment pair” or “features” of a fragment
pair. Thus, the only disputed claim term with respect to these two claims
appears to be “context-adaptive descriptor scaling.” As previously found,
this term is satisfied by Conilescu’s “k-values scaling.” (See supra pp. 11-
12.)
4 In our view, Appellants have not fully complied with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) which requires more than recitation of an additional claim
limitation. Merely stating the references don’t teach or suggest the
limitation, coupled with a statement that the Examiner’s position is
“flawed,” is not sufficient. Nevertheless, we have considered each recited
limitation, and the Examiner’s findings with respect to each.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013