Appeal No. 2000-1511
Application 08/671,853
been obvious to the artisan to control the system of Butsuen
using fuzzy logic rules as taught by Ishikawa [first action
rejection, pages 7-8].
Appellants argue that neither Butsuen nor Ishikawa
teaches the selection of one of a plurality of state vectors as
claimed to direct the system to select one of a plurality of sets
of fuzzy inference rules. Specifically, appellants argue that
the “COMMENT” section of Ishikawa does not teach the selection of
a state vector as claimed [brief, pages 12-18].
The examiner responds that the phrase “state vectors” is
essentially broad enough to read on any input of data, including
the data input in Butsuen or Ishikawa. The examiner also
responds that Ishikawa teaches the selection of a subset of the
rules based on the detection of objects [answer, pages 8-11].
Appellants respond that the parameters of the state
vectors of the claimed invention are specifically defined within
the claims and are not met by any input data [reply brief].
With respect to independent claims 100 and 117, we agree
with the arguments made by appellants in the briefs. These
claims specifically recite the selection of one of a plurality of
state vectors and specify what the parameters of the state vector
are. Since the parameters of the state vector are recited in
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007