Appeal 2007-2467
Application 09/750,150
Here, Appellants argue claims 1-26, which are subject to the same
ground of rejection, as a group. (App. Br.2 10). Appellants argue claim 1
(and dependent claims 2-12) and apply the same arguments in support of the
other independent claims 13, 19, and 24 (and dependent claims 14-18, 20-
23, 25, and 26).3 We note that not all of Appellants’ arguments for claims 1-
12 are applicable to claims 13-26. Therefore, we consider claim 1 as the
sole claim on which to decide the appeal of claims 1-12 (the first group) and
claim 13 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of claims 13-26 (the
second group).
II. CLAIMS 1-12
"Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the
issue therebetween." Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144,
at *2 (BPAI 2007). The Examiner indicated that claim 1 is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Wang. (Ans. 3-4). Appellants argue that
Wang does not disclose a “second table to provide a prediction value” (App.
Br. 7) and that “the cited references do not disclose ‘… determining a hit in
a second table …’ as recited in claim 1.” (Id. 9).
The Examiner equates the “second table” of claim 1 with the Pattern
History Table (PHT) of Wang and further finds that “[t]he PHT outputs a
2 We rely on and refer to the revised Appeal Brief, in lieu of the original
Appeal Brief, because the latter was defective. We will not consider the
original in deciding this appeal.
3 Appellant argues that “[i]ndependent claims 13, 19, and 24 contain
substantively similar limitations and therefore should be allowed as well.”
(App. Br. 10). Therefore, Appellant relies on the same arguments with
respect to deficiencies in Wang as applied against claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013