Appeal No. 1999-1856
Application No. 08/686,792
determining a parameter of the at least one time-variable
parameter of the industrial process using the current process model:
controlling the industrial process as a function of the determined
parameter; and
replacing the control network with the background network after
one of a predetermined training period and an occurrence of an external
event.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Ishizuka et al. (Ishizuka) 5,033,006 Jul. 16, 1991
Skeirik 5,408,586 Apr. 18, 1995
Samad et al. (Samad) 5,486,996 Jan. 23, 1996
Broese et al. (Broese) 5,608,842 Mar. 4, 1997
Claims 15-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Samad in view of Broese. Claims 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Samad in view of Broese further in view of Skeirik. Claims 24-26
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Samad, Broese and
Skeirik further in view Ishizuka.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Dec. 21, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Sep. 25, 1998) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007