Appeal No. 2005-0742
Application No. 10/274,579
therefore focus upon the last stated clause of representative
independent claim 1 on appeal, which corresponds to the subject
matter at the end of independent apparatus claim 20 as well:
displaying a representation of said at least one
combining policy, each of said combining policies defining a
manner in which said contributed data values are combined in
order to determine a final value for said at least one
attribute.
The top of page 5 of the answer indicates the examiner’s
view that Shasha does not explicitly disclose this latter stated
feature of displaying a representation of the combining policy.
The examiner therefore relies upon Tanaka for this feature.
Although appellants contest the examiner’s combinability of
Tanaka with Shasha, for purposes of expediting our decision in
this appeal, we shall assume for the sake of argument that there
is ample basis within the teachings and suggestions of both
references for the combination.
The top of page 5 of the answer asserts that Tanaka
teaches an expert system in which an inference process is
displayed such as displaying a combination of a rule and
a fact. As revealed at column 1, lines 42 through 46,
Tanaka’s basis of his invention is that a conventional expert
system does not necessarily display to the user a situation where
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007