Ex parte NAOHISA KOMETANI et al. - Page 7

          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             

                    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                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007