Appeal No. 97-0507
Application 08/202,609
analyzing aeromagnetic data. Rather than disregarding or
dissecting out such limitations the examiner has merely not given
them patentable weight even within 35 U.S.C. § 102 because they
are statements of intended use. There is adequate precedent for
the examiner’s view that using specific data in the processing of
data and training of a neural network does not amount to any
structural or functional limitation of the claimed neural
network. A different intended use of the same structure as in
the prior art does not prohibit a statutory anticipation
rejection. Indeed, it has been stated by our reviewing court
that “the absence of a disclosure relating to
function does not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation. It
is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an
old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable
(case citations omitted).” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court concludes at
128 F.3d 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1431-32, that “Schreiber’s contention
that his structure will be used to dispense popcorn does not have
patentable weight if the structure is already known, regardless
of whether it has ever been used in any way in connection with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007