Appeal No. 2001-2696
Application No. 08/950,230
particular, we fail to see how the generalized discussion of
genetic algorithms at pages 21 and 23 of Cliff relate to the
specifically claimed feature of defining a drive for each agent
that is mapped to a transaction-based need. Further, although
the cited passages from Cliff discuss generalized teachings of
genetic encoding, we find no specific indication as to how such
encoding would be applied to the defined transaction-based need
drives.
Similarly, with respect to independent claim 5, we agree
with Appellants (Brief, page 13) that it is not evident as to how
the portions of Cliff cited by the Examiner, i.e., page 21,
second paragraph and page 22, second paragraph, describe the
interaction of selected agents with different transaction
environments as claimed. While the Examiner’s response (Answer,
pages 8 and 9) cites further excerpts from Cliff (page 4, last
paragraph and page 11, third paragraph), we do not see any
relevant correlation with the language of claim 5. In
particular, Cliff’s generalized discussion of the matching of
simulator results with real human behavior and the survival
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007