Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 20
Application No. 08/105,899
reversed. As claims 3-5 depend from claim 2, the rejection of
claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over is
reversed. Turning to claims 15-17, claim 15 contains similar
limitations as claim 2. Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim
15. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 15-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is therefore reversed.
Turning now to claim 8, the examiner‘s position is that
Ueda does not disclose the claimed ultimate gain or ultimate
period. The examiner asserts (answer, pages 6 and 7) that
Hägglund discloses the claimed variables and that “[i]t would
have been obvious to . . . employ Hagglund’s use of the
Ziegler Nichols method as discussed above in claim 2.”
Appellant ASSERTS (brief, pages 15-17)that “Hagglund does not
calculate control parameters for tuning a fuzzy logic
controller. [Appellant’s claim 1 from which claim 8 depends].”
([]original). We note that Hägglund was not applied against
claim 1, and that claim 8 is directed to the inclusion of
ultimate gain and ultimate period in the dynamic process
characteristics. The decision of the examiner to reject claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed since the appellant has
not challenged this rejection with any reasonable specificity,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007