Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 10
Application No. 08/105,899
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of Kraus is
reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of Ying, we have also
reviewed the Ying reference but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Mega as discussed above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Mega in view of Ying is reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1, 9, 10 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Ueda, the
examiner‘s position (answer, page 4) is that
As per claims 1 and 14, the appellant’s determining
step is taught by the determination of K1, K2 and
K3 disclosed in figure 8 and column 5. The appellant’s
calculation and tuning steps are taught by Ueda’s
deciding all membership functions which are set
in the inference unit 11 (see figure 7).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 9) that the values K1, K2, and
K3 do not appear to be dynamic characteristics. We agree.
However, from our review of Ueda, we find that Ueda discloses
determining from the process a plurality of dynamic process
characteristics for tuning the fuzzy logic controller. Ueda
discloses (col. 5, lines 29-32 and 51-53) that from the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007