Appeal No. 1997-1573
Application No. 08/276,551
purpose [sic, of] using a self learning control
system for abating vibrations and noise for
increased comfort in the cabin of a vehicle.
In response, Appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 3) are
primarily directed to the contention that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since no
support for the Examiner’s assertion of functional equivalence
has been provided. After careful review of the prior art in
light of the arguments of record, we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner has not established support for a conclusion of
art recognized functional equivalence. The mere fact that the
claimed Hopfield neural network and Bozich’s neural network
are used for the same purpose as asserted by the Examiner
(Answer, page 6, “. . . are both directed to the art of self
learning control systems for abating noise and vibration, . .
.”) does not establish art recognized functional equivalence.
In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale for supporting
an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized
in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s
disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are
functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d
590, 599, 118 USPQ 340,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007