Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 21
Application No. 08/105,899
thereby allowing claim 8 to fall with claim 1 from which it
depends. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Turning to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Ueda in view of Kraus, the examiner
acknowledges (answer, page 8) that Ueda does not disclose a
pattern recognition method. To overcome this deficiency of
Ueda, the examiner relies upon Kraus. The examiner’s position
(id.)is that “Kraus, however, discloses a pattern recognizing
self tuning PID controller. Kraus also notes that pattern
recognition is a known technique for controller tuning (see
column 1, lines 30-44).” The examiner concludes (id.) that
“[i]t would have been obvious to .... combine the pattern
recognizing PID controller with Ueda’s . . . .” Appellant
asserts (brief, page 19) that “Kraus does not teach or suggest
use of dynamic process characteristics determined by a pattern
recognition method to tune a fuzzy logic controller.”
Appellant additionally asserts (id.) “[n]or does Ueda teach or
suggest use of a pattern recognition method to tune the fuzzy
logic controller of its system.”
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007