Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
output values from multiple sources was old and well known at the time of
the invention as a way to predict.” FF 3.3 In that regard, the claims read on
Carney which discloses a neural network producing an output representing a
prediction. Para. [0044]; see also Answer 4. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments with respect to the Official Notice (FF 6) are not persuasive as to
error in the rejection. FF 6.
The rejection is affirmed.
III. Obviousness – Claims 3-10
A. Facts
1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Carney in view of Barr. Answer 6.
2. Appellants’ argument is, in total:
Claims 3 and 10 are dependent upon claims 1 and 8,
respectively, which are submitted to be allowable in view of
Carney for the reasons set forth above [with respect to the
rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13]. Accordingly,
claims 3 and 10 should be allowable under Carney for these
reasons as well. Because Barr does not cure the deficiencies of
Carney, claims 3 and 10 are not obvious in view of the cited
references and should therefore be allowed.
3 The Board is relying on less than all of the references the Examiner
applied. But that does not warrant a new ground of rejection. In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491,496, 131 USPQ 263,266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363
F.2d 455,458 n.2 150 USPQ 441,444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013