Ex parte Brady et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 1999

08163825 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 1999)

Application for patent filed December 8, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MARK J. BRADY,
BELAYNEH W. MILLION and JOHN T. STRAND

_____________
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,8251
______________
HEARD: September 13, 1999
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
2
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 16, 19 through 32 and 34 through 53.
Claims 17, 18 and 33 are objected to as being dependent on
rejected base claims.
The invention is directed to a classification type
neural network that performs piecewise linear separation along
the entire input space. On page 26 of the specification,
Appellants disclose the architecture of the facet classifica-
tion neural network of the invention by referring to figure
10. In particular, Appellants disclose that figure 10 shows a
multilayer neural network having input layer 162, two layers
of nodes (difference nodes 164 and perceptron nodes 166) and
output layer 168. Input layer 162 receives n-dimensional
input vectors representing information to be classified by
neural network 160. Difference nodes 164 are nodes found in a
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
3
domain layer of the neural network. The function of the
difference nodes is to partition the input space by defining
the domain of each linear separation, or each facet. In
particular, the difference nodes 164 transform the input
vector to the localized domain defined by the difference
nodes 164. Minimum node 170 identifies a
transforming difference node from the difference nodes 170.
The transforming difference node is the difference node defin-
ing the vornoi cell in which the input vector to be classified
lies. Perceptron layer 166 comprises a plurality of
perceptrons, each perceptron assigned to a particular domain.
Each perceptron takes as its input the difference vector
output from its corresponding difference node. The output
layer 168 receives the output from the perceptron node 166
and outputs a class designator for the input vector.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A classification neural network for classifying
input patterns, said classification neural network comprising:
an input node for receiving said input patterns;
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
4
a plurality of nodes connected to said input node
for transforming said input patterns to localized domains
defined by each node;
a minimum node connected to said plurality of nodes
for identifying a transforming node from said plurality of
nodes;
a plurality of perceptron nodes, each said
perceptron node connected to a corresponding node from said
plurality of nodes for producing class designators, wherein
said transforming node transmits a signal to its corresponding
perceptron node for producing a class designator; and
an output node connected to said plurality of
perceptron nodes for receiving said class designators from
said plurality of perceptron nodes.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Weingard 5,179,596 Jan. 12, 1993
Lu, Shin-yee, "Pattern Classification Using Self-Organizing
Feature Maps," International Joint Conference on Neural
Networks, vol. 1 (June 17-21, 1990), 471-80.
Claims 1 through 16, 19 through 32 and 34 through 53
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Weingard in view of Lu.
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
5
Rather than reiterate the argument of Appellants and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 16, 19 through 32 and 34 through 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness,
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
6
the claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there
is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-
Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 822 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 10 through 12 of the brief, Appellants
argue that neither Weingard nor Lu teaches or suggests a
plurality of perceptron nodes, each perceptron node
connected to a corresponding node from said plurality of nodes
for producing class designators, wherein said transforming
node transmits a signal to its corresponding perceptron node
for producing a class designator as recited in Appellants'
claim 1. Appellants argue that the perceptron node is a term
known in the art and is defined in the "Background of the
Invention" found in Appel- lants' specification. Appellants
argue that this definition must be given weight when the
Examiner considers the rejection.
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
7
Appellants argue that neither reference teaches a perceptron
node as defined by Appellants' specification.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner responds to
the above Appellants' argument. In particular, the Examiner
argues that the perceptron node as described in the
"Background of the Invention" is not stated in the claims and,
therefore, is not relevant to whether the reference teaches
this limitation or not. Our reviewing court states in In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989) that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow." Moreover, when interpreting a claim,
words of the claim are generally given their ordinary and
accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification
or the file history that they were used differently by the
inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys.,
Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir.
1993). Although an inventor is indeed free to define the
specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
8
precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.2d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
On pages 3 through 5 of Appellants' specification,
Appellants define a perceptron node as recognized in the art.
In particular, Appellants point to Frank Rosenblatt,
Principles
of Neurodynamics, New York, Spartan Books (1959), U.S. Patent
No. 3,287,649 to Rosenblatt, and Marvin Minsky and Seymour
Papert, MA, MIT Press (1969) as evidence of the special
meaning of perceptron nodes. In particular, Appellants define
a perceptron node as a node that decides whether an input
belongs to one of two classes. Appellants disclose that a
perceptron separates all points in class A from those in class
B and in a two dimensional case is represented generally
mathematically by equation 2 disclosed on page 5.
From Appellants' disclosure, we find that the term
"perceptron" has a special meaning in the art as defined in
Appellants' specification on pages 3 through 5. Therefore,
when interpreting the claim language, we are required to give
the term "perceptron" this defined meaning as per the specific
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
9
terms set forth on pages 3 through 5 of Appellants'
specification.
We note that all of Appellants' claims recite the
limitation of a perceptron node. We also note that the
Examiner
has failed to address this limitation as it is defined in
Appellants' specification. Upon our review of Weingard and
Lu, we fail to find that either of these references teaches
this limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 16, 19 through 32 and 34 through
53 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Weingard
in view of Lu.
We have not sustained the rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision
is reversed.
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
10
37 CFR § 1.196(b)
A new ground of rejection of claims 50 through 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the Appellants regard as their invention is entered
under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Claims 50 through 53 depend on claim
49. Claim 49 sets forth a method of producing weight vectors
and modifying a size of a neural network. However, claims 50
through 53 are setting forth a classification neural network
according to claim 49. We find that claims 50 through 53
fail to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the Appellants' invention under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997,
by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10,
1997),
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
11
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. and Trademark Office 63,122 (Oct. 21,
1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that "[a] new ground of
rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of
judicial review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new
ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37
CFR § 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or a showing of
facts relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the
examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the application be
reheard under § 1.197(b) by the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences upon the
same record. . . .
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
REVERSED 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
13
MRF:psb
Appeal No. 1996-2480
Application 08/163,825
14
Stephen W. Buckingham
3M Office of Intellectual Property Counsel
P.O. Box 33427
St. Paul, MN 55133-3427