Appeal No. 2006-2765
Application No. 10/372,160
include at least a user interface, an output device, a
CPU and a memory.
Appellants’ argument (brief, page 13) concerning a “global minimum” are
not commensurate in scope with the invention set forth in claims 12 and 21.
We agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page 14) that the disclosure
uses “quantum mechanical tunneling” to determine the “optimal solution.”
On the other hand, we hereby decline to read “quantum mechanical
tunneling” into claims 12 and 21. A feature found only in appellants’
specification will not be read into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969). Appellants’ argument (brief, page
14) that Atkins fails to teach modeling is without merit because the solving
of the equations in Atkins is tantamount to modeling. In summary, the
anticipation rejection of claims 12 through 15, 17, 18 and 20 through 27 is
sustained.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7
through 9, 11 and 28 through 30, and appellants’ arguments concerning
Atkins (brief, page 15), we find that Atkins uses a computer, like the
disclosed and claimed invention, to solve the equations to reach the same
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013