Appeal No. 96-3248
Application 08/022,347
which does not meet the recitation of claim 9. Finally,
appellants argue that Nakano does not store the rear implication
as two discrete terms for calculating a center of gravity as
recited in claim 9 [brief, pages 6-7].
In the “Response to argument” section of the answer, the
examiner does not directly address the first two arguments made
by appellants, but the examiner does respond that Nakano teaches
storing a memory word having two discrete terms for calculating
center of gravity [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellants concede that
Nakano stores front prepositions and rear implications
separately, however, appellants again argue that Nakano does not
store these values in the manner recited in claim 9 nor calculate
center of gravity as specifically recited in the claims. We
agree with the position of appellants for basically the same
reasons put forth by them.
We agree with appellants that the examiner has merely
demonstrated that Nakano separately stores front prepositions and
rear implications, but claim 9 requires more than this. Claim 9
recites that the membership functions of each logic variable of
the front preposition of each rule be stored in a respective
storage module. We agree with appellants that this claim
recitation requires that there be a group of storage modules and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007