Appeal 2007-0537
Application 10/102,902
suggest the recited limitations of claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-
26.
The § 103 Rejection Based on Cornilescu, Gilhuijs, and Atta-ur-Rahman
Claims 1, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 27 are rejected based on Cornilescu,
Gilhuijs, and Atta-ur-Rahman.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, Appellants again argue
the references do not teach or suggest the claim limitation “features of said
candidate molecule fragment pair and query molecule fragment pair
comprise descriptors, said processor performing context-adaptive scaling of
said descriptors.” For the reasons previously given, we find this claim
language taught or suggested by Cornilescu. Thus, we again conclude these
claims would have been obvious over Cornilescu and Gilhuijs alone (see
supra pp. 11-14). We further conclude they would have been obvious over
Cornilescu, Gilhuijs, and Atta-ur-Rahman, finding nothing in Atta-ur-
Rahman that teaches away from such a combination.
Appellants rely on a different claim phrase with respect to claims 11,
20, 24, and 27: “wherein a feature in said corresponding features comprises
a generalization of a comparative molecular moment analysis (CoMMA)
descriptor” (claim 11); “wherein said feature comprises a generalization of a
comparative molecular moment analysis (CoMMA) descriptor” (claim 20);
“wherein said fragment pair features comprise generalizations of
comparative molecular moment analysis (CoMMA) descriptors for said
fragment pairs” (claim 24); and “wherein said descriptors comprises a set of
local, rotationally invariant, moment-based descriptorw for said candidate
molecule” (claim 27). (App. Br. 31-33.)
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013