Appeal No. 96-3248
Application 08/022,347
trivial to the examiner, but a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
requires that all recitations of a claimed invention be found in
a single prior art reference. We are not permitted to speculate
as to whether an applied reference may operate to meet the
recitations of the claims.
For the reasons just discussed, we agree with appellants
that there are recitations in claim 9 which are not disclosed by
Nakano. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Since claims 10, 12 and 21 depend from claim 9, the invention of
these claims is also not anticipated by Nakano.
Independent claim 22 recites the storing of the front
preposition part of the membership functions in the same manner
as independent claim 9. For reasons discussed above, Nakano does
not disclose this feature of the claimed invention. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Section 102 rejection of claim 22 or of
claim 23 which depends therefrom.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of claims 9, 10, 12 and 21-23 as being anticipated by
the disclosure of Nakano. Therefore, the rejection of claims 9,
10, 12 and 21-23 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007