Ex parte RAY - Page 5




          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