Appeal No. 95-0938
Application 07/796,310
three fuzzy rule groups, each fuzzy rule group has its own
fixedly corresponding fuzzy set. The appellants are correct that
there is no disclosure in Sakai of selecting different
fuzzy sets to correspond to the same fuzzy rule group.
The examiner cites to claim 1 of Sakai, a portion of which
states:
third means for establishing another membership
function of a fuzzy set of at least one of the
determined or adjusted parameters in accordance
with a second set of fuzzy production rules . . .
However, the additional membership function or fuzzy set is for a
second fuzzy rule group.
Also, the examiner refers (answer at 4) to column 7, lines
35-48 of Sakai as disclosing dynamic selection of a fuzzy set.
However, the cited portion of Sakai discloses the selection of a
particular rule within the fuzzy rule group, not the selection of
different membership functions or fuzzy sets.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of
claims 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Sakai.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007