Appeal No. 2006-1817 Page 20
Application No. 09/851,514
VIII. Dependent Claim 19
With respect to dependent claim 19, the examiner contends that this claim
fails to further limit claim 17 from which it depends because the definition of
“contradictions” implies that they are mutually exclusive. (Examiner’s Answer, p.
31.) As such, the examiner rejected this dependent claim as obvious over Gerace
in view of Harhen in view of Deaton.
The appellants argue that to one skilled in the art, the terms “mutually
exclusive” and “contradiction” have very different meanings. The appellants
explain: “Two events or groups are mutually exclusive if they have no events in
common. By contrast, two events or groups can have some commonality and some
contradictions. These latter events contain contradictions, but are not mutually
exclusive.” (Appellants’ Reply Brief, p. 6.)
Even adopting the appellants’ interpretation of this claim limitation, we still
find that Harhen teaches discarding reasoning methods and solutions when they
conflict with other reasoning methods and solutions, such that the contradictions
between the two are mutually exclusive. (Harhen, col. 46, lines 9-56.) For the
same reasons given with respect to claim 1, we hold that a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention, possessed with the understandings and
knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general problem facing
the inventor, would have been led to apply the teachings of Harhen to the system
and method of Gerace in view of Deaton to make the combination recited in claim
19.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007