Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 22
Application No. 08/105,899
In the rejection, the examiner has not relied upon Ueda
for a teaching of a pattern recognition system. Nor has the
examiner relied upon Kraus for a teaching of a fuzzy logic
controller.
As to the argued deficiencies of each reference on an
individual basis, we note that nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We find that Ueda discloses (col. 7, lines 12-17) use of
the step response method in system identification. Ueda
notes, (id.) that the identification method is not limited to
this method and that system identification can be carried out
in the same manner by using another method. We find that
Kraus teaches the use of a pattern recognizing self tuning
controller, and teaches (col. 1, lines 33-36) that pattern
recognition is a known technique for manually tuning the
operating parameters of a controller. Kraus further teaches
(col. 8, lines 45-47) that the Ziegler-Nichols ratios are
adjusted based upon the pattern shape of the signal 32. From
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007