Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
2. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Carney
discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 but for the last step whereby
“that prediction is based on agreement of a majority of output values.”
Answer 5.
3. The Examiner states: “Official Notice is taken that such agreement of
output values from multiple sources was old and well known at the time of
the invention as a way to predict. For example, inertial navigation systems
selected a position in space based on at least two of three INS subunits
agreeing on a calculated position.” Answer 5.
4. The Examiner finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use such majority
based selection because this would improve confidence in the precision of
the predicted result.” Answer 5.
5. Appellants argue that Carney, at para. [0062], discloses averaging
numerical outputs of a neural network ensemble.
6. Appellants argue that:
• the Official Notice does not cure the deficiencies of Carney (Br. 5-
6);
• the Official Notice renders Carney inoperable (Br. 7); and,
• there is no motivation to combine Carney with the Official Notice
(Br. 8-10).
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013