Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 Bielinski does not characterize the time frame for analysis of future action, but
2 we find that such projected time frames typically include relatively short term time
3 frames because of the inherent uncertainty in projections that increases with time
4 frame. We further find that there is nothing in Bielinski that would suggest that the
5 time frame for the projection phase of the analysis is incompatible with a shorter
6 time frame.
7 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
8 (4) The Appellant argues that Rappaport’s use of a tree based model topology
9 is incompatible with Brown’s network topology (Br. 13:Third ¶).
10 The Appellant has made a broad contention of the incompatibility of these
11 methods without a specific showing of the nature of their incompatibility. The
12 Appellant bases this argument again on Rappaport rather than Bielinski as such,
13 contending that Rappaport implicitly teaches a tree methodology. We find that
14 nothing in Rappaport specifically refers to a tree based model topology. Rappaport
15 presents a figure of a tree diagram to represent the hierarchical nature of
16 organizational costs and activities (FF 33), but makes no representation as to how
17 this is incorporated within the model.
18 Even if Bielinski’s VBM were to employ a tree based methodology, we find
19 nothing inconsistent with employing a neural network within each of the branches
20 of the tree’s analysis. Further, we find nothing incompatible with assigning neural
21 network analysis to Bielinski’s phase of finding driver candidates as in claim 69
22 element [1.b.] and assigning a tree based induction model to identify drivers as in
23 element [1.c.]. The Appellant has not made any contention otherwise.
24 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013