Appeal No. 1999-0303
Application No. 08/517,628
the spinning machine.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Bhat et al. (Bhat) 5,477,444 Dec. 19, 1995
(filed Sept. 14, 1992)
Takatori et al. (Takatori) 5,553,196 Sept. 03, 1996
(filed Jun. 05,
1995)
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bhat in view of Takatori.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 13) and the appellant’s brief
(Paper No. 12).
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that the
rejection should not be sustained.
We agree with appellant that the examiner has failed to meet
the requirements for establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, since it has not been shown how the claim limitations
are taught or suggested by the combined teachings of the prior
art. There is no correlation of the disclosures of the references
to the particular features recited in the claims. The examiner’s
answer simply sets forth a selected description of Bhat,
apparently taken from the ABSTRACT, and a conclusion that it would
have been obvious to implement the adaptive neural network system
as disclosed in Bhat in a textile or spinning control system since
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007