Appeal No. 2000-0866 Page 7
Application No. 08/852,829
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, we
agree with the appellants that the use of residual mass
fraction in controlling a vehicle component is not disclosed
in or suggested by the applied prior art.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claim 5, and dependent claims 8
and 9, is reversed.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15 and 16
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6 and 8; reply brief,
pp. 1-2) that the applied prior art does not suggest the
claimed subject matter. Specifically, the appellants assert
that the claimed steps of generating test data during
operation of the vehicle component, calibrating a simulator
for simulating operation of the vehicle component using the
test data, generating at least one map, and embedding the
trained neural network into the controller is not disclosed in
or suggested by the applied prior art. The examiner disagrees
for the reasons set forth in the answer (pp. 3-8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007