Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 23
Application No. 08/105,899
these teachings of Ueda and Kraus, we conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been taught to have used
a pattern recognition method for determining the dynamic
process characteristics. Accordingly, we will affirm the
rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Ueda in view of Kraus.
Turning to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Ueda in view of Ying, the examiner
states (answer, page 9) that Ueda does not disclose the
claimed critical gain and integral time constant. To overcome
this deficiency in Ueda, the examiner turns to Ying. The
examiner’s position (answer, page 9) is that “Ying discloses
the appellant’s proportional gain and integral gain change
with error and rate (see equation 14)." The examiner
concludes (id.) that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to
employ such values in the system of Ueda because this allows
for the optimal operation of the fuzzy controller due to
fuzzification and
defuzzification. . . .” Appellant asserts (brief, page 20)
that Ueda does not “teach or suggest the critical gain and
integral time constant as specific values of the dynamic
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007