Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
majority of output values being substantially the same.” This step is not
conditioned on there being more than one output value. If only a single
output value exists, that would constitute a majority of output values. This is
consistent with the first step which, as already explained, covers generating a
single output value. We therefore find that the broadest reasonable
construction of the claims as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art
reading the claims as a whole is that they encompass an output value from a
single source and basing prediction on price movement on that single output
value.
Appellants argue that Carney discloses averaging numerical outputs of
a neural network ensemble (FF 5). The persuasiveness of this argument
requires us to read the claims as requiring the generating of more than one
output value. However, as discussed above, the broadest reasonable
construction of the claims as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art
reading the claims as a whole is that the claims encompass generating an
output value from a single source. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not
commensurate in scope with what is claimed. “Many of appellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because, . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims . . . .” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1,
5 (CCPA 1982).
Because the claims read on a method for predicting a price movement
in a financial market based on a single output value, it was not necessary for
the Examiner to rely on the Official Notice to argue that “such agreement of
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013