Appeal No. 97-0707
Application No. 08/001,474
sustained because we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 7)
that “Jaeckel further discloses summing circuitry . . . and
threshold circuitry - see figure 1 items 25, 27 and 29.”
With respect to method claims 17 and 23, we agree with the
examiner (Answer, page 7) that these claims “are the method
claims that correspond to the operation detailed above for claims
1, 5-6, 8 . . . 13 and 15-16 and the rationale of Jaeckel’s
anticipation of these apparatus claims can be applied to the
corresponding method claims.” For all of the reasons expressed
supra in connection with claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 16, the
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 17 and 23 is sustained.
Claims 20 and 21 are directed to the lack of “overlapping
hyperspheres” or to the elimination of “overlaps of the
hyperspheres,” respectively. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
these claims is reversed because Jaeckel is silent concerning
such teachings.
Although claim 11 is an originally filed claim, the
specification does not provide any explanation concerning how a
tree adder can add outputs in “logarithm time units.” We can5
speculate as to how this would be done by a tree adder, but it is
5As indicated on page 359 of the attached publication by
Rogers, optimization of processes in sparse distributed memory
(SDM) is achieved by use of a tree adder.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007