Appeal No. 96-0361
Application 08/288,154
Claims 2 and 5 have not been separately argued; however,
we consider them because of the new ground of rejection. The
stored ACTION value in Basehore is representative of an output
from executing a single rule as claimed in claim 2; therefore,
the rejection of claim 2 is sustained. The stored value in
Basehore does not appear representative of a means of maxima
defuzzification as recited in claim 5, but is an output
corresponding to the optimum rule; therefore, the rejection of
claim 5 is reversed.
Appellants argue that claim 3 recites that each memory
location corresponds to a partition in state space in which a
corresponding rule is dominant. Since Basehore selects the
MAX RULE for an optimum rule from among the rules of the rule
base, and since the rule base represents a partition of the
state space in the same manner as appellants' figure 13, each
address in the rule base 700 can be said to correspond to a
partition in state space in which a corresponding rule is
dominant (optimum). The rejection of claim 3 is sustained.
Appellants argue that claim 4 recites that boundaries
between adjacent partitions are defined by points of
intersection between adjacent terms in a subset. Since
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007