Appeal No. 95-0938
Application 07/796,310
Regarding the relationship between fuzzy rule groups and
fuzzy sets, we do not interpret any of the above-quoted
independent claims 7, 9 and 11 as being so broad as to be
satisfied by a fixed association or correspondence of a fuzzy set
to a fuzzy rule group. Claim 7 recites a plurality of fuzzy sets
which correspond to a fuzzy rule group. Claims 7 and 9 recite
dynamic selection of fuzzy sets and combining the selected fuzzy
set with a fuzzy rule group. Claim 11 recites designating one of
a plurality of fuzzy rule groups and one of a plurality of fuzzy
sets and then combining the designated fuzzy rule group and fuzzy
set. While it is possible to construe all of this language as
being met by a fixed correspondence of a particular fuzzy set to
a particular fuzzy rule group, such as by seeing the dynamic
selection or designation as a fixed and unvarying selection, such
a construction of the claims is unreasonable, especially in light
of the appellants’ specification.
First, if the correspondence is fixed, there is no need to
make dynamic selections and subsequent combinations of the
selected fuzzy rule group and the selected fuzzy set. Secondly,
the appellants’ specification makes abundantly clear that the
appellants see the problem with prior art systems as having a
fixed association between a fuzzy rule group and its
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007