Appeal No. 1997-1573
Application No. 08/276,551
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner
proposes to modify the vibration control system disclosed by
Bozich which includes a neural network controller which
performs system identification and optimal control functions
but lacks any disclosure of utilizing a Hopfield based neural
network. To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to
Appellant’s admissions as to the prior art Hopfield neural
network beginning at line 23 of page 13 of Appellant’s
specification. The Examiner’s line of reasoning is set forth
at page 6 of the Answer as follows:
Since the Hopfield based neural network and
the neural network taught by Bozich are both
directed to the art of self learning control
systems for abating noise and vibration, the
Hopfield neural network would have been
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the
art as an art equivalent. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to replace the neural network
of Bozich with the Hopfield network for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007