Appeal No. 96-3699
Application 08/063,407
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 12) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 18)
and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 17) and reply brief (Paper No. 19).
Appellant’s Invention
The invention is a method of artificial intelligence. The method uses a second existing data base
(i.e., a human data base including data on skin transplants) to solve a problem (i.e., damaged tree bark)
where an existing solution is not found in a first data base (i.e., a tree data base). Thus, a computer can
create a new solution to the problem using a second, existing data base by substituting a new term or
data from the first data base (i.e., bark) for a term or data in the second data base (i.e., skin). Thus, in
the given example, “skin transplant” would become “bark transplant”. The data of the second data
base involving information concerning humans is not directly related to the problem to be solved.
Another aspect of the invention is that data bases used with the invention are organized in a
hierarchy of different levels. The existing data into which new data is substituted must be obtained from
the correct level in the data base.
The Prior Art
Prager discloses a data processing system which suggests a valid command to a user when the
user has entered an erroneous question or command. With respect to Figure 3, inference engine 32
and rules base 34 form an expert system for analyzing the inputs from a user at 36 for solving the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007