Appeal No. 96-4014
Application 08/192,939
selector of figure 2 teaches taking a plurality of input variable
values from the low level controllers and computing the single
output variable value of fuel flow (or fuel flow derivative as
shown in appellants' figure 3b). It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to substitute a fuzzy
logic controller for the mode selector in the admitted prior art,
to aggregate the control variable values from the low level
controllers in the prior art into the single output value taught
by the prior art. For the reasons stated with respect to
claim 1, and the reasons further set forth in this paragraph, we
sustain the rejection of claims 8-11, 14-16, and 20.
Hisano does not disclose or suggest proportional-integral
controllers as recited in claims 12 and 18, or fuzzy
proportional-integral controllers as recited in claims 13 and 19.
The examiner states that the admitted prior art discloses that
the low level controllers can be proportional-integral
controllers (Final Rejection, page 4). Appellants argue in
response (Brief, page 12) (emphasis added):
Appellant agrees that this feature is disclosed in the
specification at page 10, lines 1-5. However, this feature
is not disclosed as prior art. Instead, this section
provides a description of a function describing a
conventional proportional-integral controller. There is no
statement disclosing that conventional proportional-integral
controllers are currently being used or can be used with the
prior art control system disclosed in Fig. 2 of Appellant's
specification. Therefore, it is submitted that the
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007