Appeal No. 96-3513
Application No. 08/220,772
The examiner in the present case has found an implication
in Krutz that the latch "could be" placed before the adder
circuit, but provides no teaching, suggestion, or implication
from the prior art as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to do so. As pointed out by
appellant (Brief, page 4), "In no instance does the cited
reference suggest configuring of elements as required by the
appealed claims." Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 4,
7, 10, 11, 13 through 15, and 17, and the claims dependent
therefrom, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
In addition, appellant recites in the preamble of claim 1
a "processing circuit for processing the output of an
artificial neuron said neuron generating a sequence of
outputs, said processing circuit being coupled to said neuron
outputs" (underlining added for emphasis). Further, the body
of the claim refers to "said neuron outputs." The examiner
contends (Answer, page 3) that the phrase "neuron output" is
"the mere labeling of a number or signal." However, "neuron
output" refers to the output of a neuron circuit, which is the
building block of an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007