Appeal 2007-1088
Application 10/006,959
rate of the cutting structures is substantially constant over the life of the drill
bit, which may not be the case.”
Appellants’ remarks in the principal Brief and the Reply Brief do not
contest the Examiner’s additional reliance upon Talbott for the same
teaching regarding the effect of aging. Page 18 of the principal Brief, which
discusses Talbott, does not deny that it teaches what the Examiner asserts it
teaches.
Appellants’ assertion that Talbott does not disclose or otherwise
remedy the deficiencies of Jelley relating to updating (page 18 of the
principal Brief; page 5 of the Reply Brief) is misplaced since the Examiner
has not relied upon Talbott for this teaching.
As noted at page 15 of the Answer, Appellants do not assert
patentability of dependent claims 11 and 12 and dependent claim 6 in this
rejection on their own merits, but merely respectively rely upon the features
argued with respect to independent claims 1 and 10 which we have found
unpersuasive of patentability.
Lastly, we turn to the separate rejection of claim 9, as to which the
Examiner relies upon Appellants’ assertions in addition to the teachings in
Jelly. These assertions are mentioned at page 16 of the Answer as being
reflective of the actual admissions of Appellants at paragraph 35 of the
Specification page 7. The essence of the principle relied upon by the
Examiner is that neural network weights are well-known in neural network
theory and application. Appellants’ remarks regarding claim at page 19 of
the principal Brief (no remarks as to this claim are presented in the Reply
Brief) do not argue against the Examiner’s reliance upon these admissions or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013