Appeal No. 97-0507
Application 08/202,609
independent claim 25 by disregarding the preamble. A brief study
of independent claim 25 yields that the features relating to
aeromagnetic data in the preamble find corresponding language
utilized in the body of this claim even though the body
recitations do not utilize the word “said” to respectively and
clearly refer back to the preamble recitations. The plots in the
preamble are not produced by the system in the body of the claim,
however.
Appellants do not argue any structural distinction per se in
apparatus claim 25 over that which the examiner has argued to
exist in each of the references relied upon under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Indeed, appellants’ disclosure of the base neural network
structure in Fig. 1 of the disclosure is shown in the respective
portions of the references relied on by the examiner, namely,
Fig. 11 of Reilly at page 234 of this reference and Figs. 3 and 4
of McCormack. Each reference relates to the basic neural network
structure having an input, hidden and output layers, which are
essentially recited in the initial long clause of the body of
claim 25 on appeal.
Additionally, each reference relied upon teaches training in
the form of backward propagation of error signals based upon
known data through an experimentally determined number of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007