Appeal No. 96-0113
Application 07/848,779
It is not clear as [to] how the combinatorial
minimization techniques are performed.
Based on the foregoing, it is not evident why the examiner
found that the terms "combinatorial minimization technique,"
"stochastic annealing," and "genetic algorithm" have to be more
clearly explained in the claims. It is not the function of
claims to define the meaning of terms. Rather, that is the role
of the written specification.
The following discussion in the examiner's answer at page 4
reveals more what the examiner had in mind:
Appellant['s] argument is not persuasive. The
"stochastic annealing" and "a genetic algorithm" are
broad terms well known in the art. There are different
methods for performing such "stochastic annealing" and
"a genetic algorithm" functions. The claims are
interpreted in the broad sense that appellant is
intended to claim all the "stochastic annealing" and "a
genetic algorithm" methods instead of the particular
method as disclosed in the specification. The claims
fail to clearly define the "stochastic annealing" and
"a genetic algorithm" methods as recited in the
specification. Accordingly, the claims are considered
as vague, and indefinite.
From the above-quoted explanation, it is evident that the
examiner had no difficulty understanding what each of the terms
means. Instead, the examiner found fault with the appellant's
not limiting the claimed invention to any particular kind of
stochastic annealing or a specific genetic algorithm. But that
is confusing breadth with indefiniteness. With the broad
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007