Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
2 application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
3 “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
4 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
5 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” 127 S. Ct. at 1742, USPQ2d at
6 1397.
7 ANALYSIS
8 Claims 69-103 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bielinski
9 and Brown.
10 The Appellant argues these claims as a group. Although the Appellant
11 nominally contends each of the independent claims individually, each of the
12 contentions for the remaining independent claims refers back to the arguments for
13 claim 69.
14 Accordingly, we select claim 69 as representative of the group.
15 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c(1)(vii) (2006).
16 We initially construe claim 69. We find that claim 69 is divided into two parts,
17 [1] and [2]. Part [1] recites the method steps, which, overall perform element [1.a]
18 integrating data, by step [1.b] using a neural network model to identify a fist set of
19 candidates, from which step [1.c] further identifies a set of drivers, and defines a
20 set of contribution summaries, finally, in step [1.d] creating network models with
21 the summaries. Thus, claim 69 contains three steps, [1.b-d] that are employed
22 within step [1.a]. Steps [1.b-d] are necessarily sequential because each of [1.c] and
23 [1.d] requires output from the preceding step. Part [2] identifies components used
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013