Appeal 2007-2011
Application 09/823,272
Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wan in view of Kothuri.
Claims 4 through 6, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Kothuri and Weber.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 30, 2006) and
to Appellants' Brief (filed October 16, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed January
30, 2007) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 3 through 8, and 10 through 13. We also enter a new
ground of rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, and 10 through 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 15-17 and Reply Br. 4-6) that Wan prefers
cells of uniform size, whereas Kothuri divides data into subsets where each
subset will fit into a leaf node regardless of cell size. Appellants contend
(Br. 17) that modifying Wan with the teachings of Kothuri would render it
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Thus, Appellants contend (Br. 17)
that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wan and
Kothuri. In addition, Appellants contend (Br. 17-18) that even if the
references were combined, they would not suggest determining whether one
or more of the uniform sized cells have a concentration of feature vectors
and hierarchically partitioning them.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013