Appeal 2007-1088
Application 10/006,959
development machine to the test machine” in claim 7 is broad enough to
read on the same machine and model at different times.
We turn now to the Appellants’ argument that the claimed comparing
and updating features of the claims on appeal are not taught in Jelley.
Appellants do not deny that Jelley discloses comparing data and using the
results of the comparison to update the neural network. Instead, they deny
that Jelly compares “data” from a test machine with “corresponding data”
from the model development machine (claim 1) (Br. 14) or that he compares
a “computed parameter” from a test machine to an “estimated parameter”
from the test machine (claim 7) (Br. 16). These claim limitations also read
on Jelley when the claimed machines and models are read on Jelley’s single
machine and neural network at different times. Jelley compares a measured
(i.e., actual) value of an operating parameter (e.g., lateral acceleration) to the
value predicted for that operating parameter by the neural network (Jelley
para. 61). Using the terms of claim 1, the predicted value corresponds to the
recited “corresponding data of the model development machine” and the
measured value corresponds to the recited “data from the at least one test
machine.” In claim 7, on the other hand, both of the compared values are
from the test machine and consist of (1) a “computed parameter” determined
on the test machine and (2) an “estimated parameter” provided by the neural
network on the test machine. The “computed parameter” corresponds to
Jelly’s measured parameter value and the “estimated parameter” reads on
Jelley’s predicted parameter value.
Figure 11 of Jelley would clearly convey impliedly to an artisan a
comparative functionality between a measurement obtained from a test
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013