Appeal No. 96-0361
Application 08/288,154
Basehore appears to partition the state space according to the
rules, the boundaries appear to be defined by points of
intersection between adjacent terms in a termset. The
rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
We find that Basehore does not suggest the limitations of
claims 6-9, which are separately argued by appellants.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 6-9 is reversed.
Claims 26, 27, 29, and 30
Appellants argue (Br13) that Basehore does not disclose
the look-up table limitation of claim 26. Claim 26 recites:
a compilation memory having a look-up table stored
therein at a plurality of memory locations, each of said
plurality of memory locations having one or more
pointers, each pointer corresponding to each rule from
said rule base which has a non-zero output when the state
variables have values corresponding to the address of
that memory location . . . .
The look-up table of claim 26 differs from the look-up table
of claims 1 and 32 in that it stores pointers to rules and
recites "means for executing the rules corresponding to the
read out of the pointers."
The examiner makes the same arguments with respect to the
look-up table of claim 26 as for claims 1 and 32. These
arguments are again nonpersuasive. The rule base 700 in
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007