Appendix 2.1Answers from the three Offices

It is noted that the original request asked for the evaluation of the claims with and without the underlined material in the Description of the Related Art in the hypothetical application. Since the underlined material is well known in the art, the inclusion or exclusion of the underlined material would not impact the stated rejections. However, prudent attorneys would be well advised to include the underlined material in their disclosure when presenting claims directed to machining a three-dimensional curved surface.

The difference of the two descriptions appears to be irrelevant for the claim assessment, since the original claims (especially claim 3) already include the machining context so that a person skilled in machining does not need the underlined passages of the first description,

 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

 No
The claim is in the category of Flow Chart Box13 "Merely manipulates abstract idea or solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application." Accordingly, it is nonstatutory subject matter.

 No
Only defines steps of a mathematical method as such, said method being carried out on abstract data points representing a curve and providing a result (the smooth curve) also in abstract form. Thus the claim relates to a mathematical method as such (A. 52(2a), 52(3) EPC).

 No
The solution is not as such utilize natural laws.

The solution to the problem to be solved by the claimed invention is such as mathematical algorithm defined by steps (a) - (d), and is not considered to be such as utilize matural laws.

 NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: Yes

Novelty As stated in MPEP 2121.01,"[i]n determining that quantum of prior art disclosure which is necessary to declare an applicant's invention 'not novel' or 'anticipated' within section 102, the stated test is whether the reference contains an 'enabling disclosure'"...."In re Hoeksema, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA1968). A reference contains an "enabling disclosure" if the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the date of invention. "Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication's description of the invention with his [or her] own knowledge to make the claimed invention." In re Donohue, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed.Cir.1985). As to prior art No.1, the mere disclosure of the induction equation of a Ferguson curve segment without any other teaching or showing of the knowledge of the skill in the art would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim under 35 U.S.C.102, Since the reference is nonenabling. According to MPEP 2121.01 "[a] reference is appropriate if one of ordinary skill could practice the claimed invention given the teachings of the reference combined with knowledge in the art. "Furthermore, "[s]econdary evidence showing [a] reference contains an 'enabling disclosure' can be combined with the reference to make out a 102 rejection." Unless it could be shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily know how to apply the induction equation in the manner described in claim1 (without undue experimentation) a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 could not be made. Accordingly, the invention of claim 1 is novel. Obviousness : According to MPEP 2144.03, "[t]he rationale supporting an obviousness rejection may be based on common knowledge in the art or 'well-known' prior art...[and] [t]he examiner may take official notice of facts outside of the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being 'well-known' in the art." With respect to prior art No.1, Official notice would be taken that the "Hermite basis matrix" and the "Hermite geometry vector", as shown as components of the Ferguson induction equation, were well known methods for determining a cubic polynomial curve segment (as could be evidenced by page 483 of the textbook Computer Graphics : Principles and Practice",1990 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.)). Applicant's disclosure at page 6 further bolsters the aspect that the Ferguson curve segment is determined by the induction equation given provide one has values for the position vectors Pi-1 , Pi at the points Ti-1 , Ti.Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc.

 NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

PA#1 discloses at most spline interpolation.

 NOVELTY: Yes
The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim.

INVENTIVE STEP: Yes
The same as the above. Furthermore, the step (a) and (b) of the claim could not have been easily made from the prior art 1.

 Category 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

 Category 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

 Category 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

 No
Note that even though the generating of a curve is performed by a computer (Flow Chart Box 8), the process does not perform independent physical acts (post-computer process activity) OR manipulate data representing physical objects or activities to achieve a practical application (pre-computer process activity) (as required by Flow Chart Box 12). The claim is in the category of Flow Chart Box 13 "Merely manipulates abstract idea or solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application." Accordingly, it is nonstatutory subject matter.

 No
- Closest Prior Art CPA: standard computer
- Difference: steps of a computer program being carried out on abstract data points representing a curve and providing a result (the smooth curve) also in abstract form.
- Effect / Obj. Problem: computer program to construct a smooth curve through a sequence of data points .
- Field: the skills required for solving the objective problem exclusively reside in the fields of mathematics and pure programming which are excluded from patentability (A. 52(2)(a), (c) EPC).

 No
The solution is not as such utilize natural laws.
The solution is no more than "mere processing of information by using a computer".
Though the claimed invention is carrying out information processing by use of a computer, the claim has no matters which suggest, directly or indirectly, how the hardware resources of computer are utilized in the processing, then the processing falls under "mere processing of information by using a computer".

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: Yes

Novelty: As to prior art No.1, the mere disclosure of the induction equation of a Ferguson curve segment without any other teaching or showing of the knowledge of the skill in the art would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim, since the reference is nonenabling, as explained with respect to claim1. Accordingly, the invention claimed in claim 2 would be novel.

Obviousness: According to MPEP 2144.03, "[t]he rationale supporting an obviousness rejection may be based on common knowledge in the art or 'well-known' prior art ... [and] [t]he examiner may take official notice of facts outside of the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being 'well-known' in the art." With respect to prior art No.1, Official notice would be taken that the "Hermite basis matrix" and the "Hermite geometry vector", as shown as components of the Ferguson induction equation, were well known methods for determining a cubic polynomial curve segment ( as could be evidenced by page 483 of the textbook Computer Graphics : Principles and Practice", 1990 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.)). Applicant's disclosure at page 6 further bolsters the aspect that the Ferguson curve segment is determined by the induction equation given provided one has values for the position vectors Pi-1 ,Pi at the points Pi-1,Pi and tangent vectors Ti-1,Ti. Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc.

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

PA#1 discloses at most spline interpolation.

NOVELTY: Yes
The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim.

INVENTIVE STEP: Yes
The same as the above. Furthermore, the step (a) and (b) of the claim could not have been easily made from the prior art 1.

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

Yes
The machining of a three dimensional surface is a process which performs independent physical acts (post-computer process activity) (as required by Flow Chart Box 12). Therefore, the process is statutory.

Yes
- CPA: "conventional method" page 5 of descr., 2nd para.
- Diff.: steps of a method for calculation of a smooth curve through a sequence of points for machining.
- Effect / Obj. Problem: improved calculation of a smooth curve through a sequence of points for machining.
- Field: technical.

Yes
The solution is information processing with respect to the control for hardware resources.

The claim directly describes utilizing point sequence connecting curve to three dimensional machining. Moreover, the word "machining" implies the presence of a machine tool. Therefore, the solution is information processing with respect to the control for hardware resources.

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: Yes

Novelty: As to prior art No.1, the mere disclosure of the induction equation of a Ferguson curve segment without any other teaching or showing of the knowledge of the skill in the art would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim, since the reference is nonenabling, as explained in the response to claim 1. Accordingly, the invention claimed in claim 3 would be novel.

Obviousness : According to MPEP 2144.03, "[t]he rationale supporting an obviousness rejection may be based on common knowledge in the art or 'well-known' prior art ... [and] [t]he examiner may take official notice of facts outside of the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being 'well-known' in the art." With respect to prior art No.1, Official notice would be taken that the "Hermite basis matrix" and the "Hermite geometry vector", as shown as components of the Ferguson induction equation, were well known methods for determining a cubic polynomial curve segment ( as could be evidenced by page 483 of the textbook Computer Graphics : Principles and Practice", 1990 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.)). Applicant's disclosure at page 6 further bolsters the aspect that the Ferguson curve segment is determined by the induction equation given provided one has values for the position vectors Pi-1,Pi at the points Pi-1,Pi and tangent vectors Ti-1,Ti. Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc.

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

PA#1 discloses at most spline interpolation.

NOVELTY: Yes
The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a), (b) and machining a three dimensional curved surface of the claim.

INVENTIVE STEP: Yes
The same as the above. Furthermore, the step (a) and (b) of the claim could not have been easily made from the prior art 1.

3 (statement of intended use in the preamble was neglected ("for machining a three dimensional curved surface") )

4 (The claim was not literally interpreted for the lack of clarity.)

It is assumed that the person skilled in the art would assume that as a final step the machining of the three-dimensional curved surface has to be done according to the point sequence connecting curve. Therefore the claim is interpreted as if it included said machining step (see claim 3).

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

No
The underlined portion of the phrase "method of generating a curve for machining a three dimensional curved surface" are merely words of intended use and do not give live and breath to the claim. Accordingly, to the "Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions, 61 F.R. 7478 (February 28, 1996) at page 7483 to be statutory a process must result in "physical transformation outside the computer for which a practical application in the technological arts is either disclosed in the specification or would have been obvious to the artisan or (2) be limited by the language in the claim to be practical application within the technological arts." Further according to the "Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions, 61 F. R.7478 (February28,1996) (at page 7485, "Intended Use or Field of Use Statements. Claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim, particularly when only presented in the claim preamble." Therefore, the language "for machining a three dimensional curved surface" does not render the process statutory.

Yes

See[3]

Yes

See[3]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUNESS: Yes

Novelty: As to prior art No.1, the mere disclosure of the induction equation of a Ferguson curve segment without any other teaching or showing of the knowledge of the skill in the art would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim, since the reference is nonenabling, as explained in the response to claim 1. Accordingly, the invention claimed in claim 4 would be novel.

Obviousness : According to MPEP 2144.03, "[t]he rationale supporting an obviousness rejection may be based on common knowledge in the art or 'well-known' prior art ... [and] [t]he examiner may take official notice of facts outside of the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being 'well-known' in the art." With respect to prior art No.1, Official notice would be taken that the "Hermite basis matrix" and the "Hermite geometry vector", as shown as components of the Ferguson induction equation, were well known methods for determining a cubic polynomial curve segment ( as could be evidenced by page 483 of the textbook Computer Graphics : Principles and Practice", 1990 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.)). Applicant's disclosure at page 6 further bolsters the aspect that the Ferguson curve segment is determined by the induction equation given provided one has values for the position vectors Pi-1,Pi at the points Pi-1,Pi and tangent vectors Ti-1,Ti. Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

PA#1 discloses at most spline interpolation.

Novelty
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) ,(b) and machining a three dimensional curved surface of the claim.

Inventive step
Yes: The same as the above. Furthermore, the step (a) and (b) of the claim could not have been easily made from the prior art 1.

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

4 (The claim was not literally interpreted for the lack of clarity.)

It is not clear whether generated curve is displayed, or three-dimensional curved surface is displayed The claim cites, however, the step of "displaying the three-dimensional curved surface according to the point sequence connecting curve." Therefore, the claim was interpreted as displaying three-dimensional curved surface.

No
The underlined portion of the phrase "method of generating a curve for displaying a generated curve by computer..." in combination with the phrase displaying the three-dimensional curved surface according to the point sequence connecting curve is treated in the "Examination guidelines for computer-Related Inventions ,61 F.R. 7478 (February 28, 1996) at page 7485 relating to the display of a three dimensional image. The issue arises as pointed out at page 7485 (line 1,et seq..,right Col.) as to whether there is a "significant use ...which is more than merely outputting the direct result of the mathematical operation." The issue is (as analyzed at page 7485) whether the acts require a conversion of the series of numbers into values representing an image that conveys information about the three-dimensional structure of the product and whether displaying of three-dimensional structure can be treated as being part of the mathematical operations. In the instant claim 5, the preamble addresses the "displaying of a generated curve", which is not necessarily a three dimensional surface representation but could be expressed in two dimensions. Moreover, the claim could take place with the points appearing in two dimensions as is evident in Fig. 1. The display of the curved surface representation is not readily adoptable to perform a function, such as identification of a particular resulting feature or the like. Accordingly, the image does not convey information about the three dimensional structure, but is rather part of the mathematical endeavor to approximate a curved surface through series of discrete points. Accordingly, the claim limitations are merely mathematical operations (i.e., approximating a curved surface) and do not render the claim statutory.

Since the result displayed is merely the display of a curved surface without a practical application being claimed and since the operation is merely detecting a circular arc passing through a series of points, the claim is not enough to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Yes
- CPA: "conventional method" page 5 of descr., 2nd para.
- Diff.: steps of a method for displaying a smooth curve through a sequence of points.
- Effect / Obj. Problem: improved calculation of a smooth curve for display through a sequence of points.
- Field: technical.

No
The solution is not as such utilize natural laws.
The phrase "displaying the three-dimensional curved surface according to the point sequence connecting curve" is matters indispensable to presentation of the problem to be solved by the claimed invention, i.e. "improved calculation of a smooth curve for display through a sequence of points", and therefore, is not deemed as the solution to the problem.

NOVELTY: No
NONOBVIOUSNESS: Yes

Novelty: As to prior art No.1, the mere disclosure of the induction equation of a Ferguson curve segment without any other teaching or showing of the knowledge of the skill in the art would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim, since the reference is nonenabling, as explained in the response to claim 1. Accordingly, the invention claimed in claim 5 would be novel.

Obviousness : According to MPEP 2144.03, "[t]he rationale supporting an obviousness rejection may be based on common knowledge in the art or 'well-known' prior art ...[and][t]he examiner may take official notice of facts outside of the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being 'well-known' in the art." With respect to prior art No.1, Official notice would be taken that the "Hermite basis matrix" and the "Hermite geometry vector", as shown as components of the Ferguson induction equation, were well known methods for determining a cubic polynomial curve segment (as could be evidenced by page 483 of the textbook Computer Graphics: Principles and practice", 1990 (Addison-Wesley publishing Co.,Inc.)). Applicant's disclosure at page 6 further bolsters the aspect that the Ferguson curve segment is determined by the induction equation given provided one has values for the position vectors Pi-1,Pi at the points Pi-1,Pi and tangent vectors Ti-1,Ti. Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc.

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

PA#1 discloses at most spline interpolation.

NOVELTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b), and displaying curved surface of the claim.

INVENTIVE STEP
Yes: The same as above. Furthermore, the step (a) and (b) of the claim could not have been easily made from the prior art 1.

3 (Statement of "intended use" in the preamble was neglected.)

The statement of intended use in the preamble concerning the intended use in a system comprising a keyboard for data input, a processor, a ROM for storing a control program, a RAM, a working memory, an output unit for outputting generated curved surface data to an external storage medium, an address bus and a data bus were not give weight in view of the fact that applicant appears to be attempting to claim a control program per se. The claim would be subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being indefinite in that it is uncertain whether the method is being claimed or the computer program per se is being claimed; i.e., it appears that applicant is merely reciting what apparatus the computer program is controlling. Applicant can clarify this by asserting that the applicant is claiming a control program stored in memory (ROM); rather than a control program comprising.

Category 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

Category 1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

No
- Closest Prior Art CPA: method of controlling a data generating apparatus (standard computer) with output unit for outputting said data.
- Difference: steps of a computer program being carried out on abstract data points representing a curve and providing a result (the smooth curve) also in abstract form.
- Effect / Obj. Problem: computer program to construct a smooth curve through a sequence of data points.
- Field: the skills required for solving the objective problem exclusively reside in the fields of mathematics and pure programming which are excluded from patentability (A. 52(2)(a), (c) EPC).

No
The solution to the problem is not as such utilize natural laws.
The solution is no more than "mere processing of information by using a computer".
Though the claimed invention is carrying out information processing by use of a computer, the claim has no matters which suggest, directly or indirectly, how the hardware resources of computer are utilized in the processing, then the processing falls under "mere processing of information by using a computer".

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: Yes

Novelty: As to prior art No.1, the mere disclosure of the induction equation of a Ferguson curve segment without any other teaching or showing of the knowledge of the skill in the art would not be a sufficient basis for rejecting the claim, since the reference is nonenabling, as explained in the response to claim 1. Accordingly, the invention claimed in claim 6 would be novel.

Obviousness: According to MPEP 2144.03, "[t]he rationale supporting an obviousness rejection may be based on common knowledge in the art or 'well-known' prior art ...[and] [t]he examiner may take official notice of facts outside of the record which are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being 'well-known' in the art." With respect to prior art No.1, Official notice would be taken that the "Hermite basis matrix" and the "Hermite geometry vector", as shown as components of the Ferguson induction equation, were well known methods for determining a cubic polynomial curve segment (as could be evidenced by page 483 of the textbook Computer Graphics: Principles and practice", 1990 (Addison-Wesley publishing Co.,Inc.)). Applicant's disclosure at page 6 further bolsters the aspect that the Ferguson curve segment is determined by the induction equation given provided one has values for the position vectors Pi-1,Pi at the points Pi-1,Pi and tangent vectors Ti-1,Ti. Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

PA#1 discloses at most spline interpolation.

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

NOVELTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim.

INVENTIVE STEP
Yes: The same as above. Furthermore, the step (a) and (b) of the claim could not have been easily made from the prior art 1.

See [1]

See [1]

See [1]

See [1]

See [1]

See [1]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: No

Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc. Prior art No. 2 "Isotropic Four-Point Interpolation", by James E. Midgley, June 8, 1979, Computer Graphics and Image Processing II, 192-196 (1979), (hereinafter Midgley) teaches at page 193 the computation of a tangent at a particular center point by making a "tangent match a circle through that [point] and the two adjacent points." One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the values for the tangents at the various points using the teaching of Midgley in the Ferguson Induction Equation in order to determine a curved surface. Accordingly, claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combination of prior art Nos. 1+2.

NOVELTY: Yes
PA#2 discloses a method for piecewise polynomial interpolation to be applied in any number of dimensions, i.e. repeating spline interpolation r(t) between two points ri and ri+1 (i = 0,1,2,...) using the formula (16), (see page 192, "Introduction").

Starting from the general formula (3) which is based on displacements di, di+1, and di+2 with respect to the four neighbouring points (ri-1, ri, ri+1, ri+2; see formulas (1), (2)), several assumptions are made in order to finally arrive at said formula (16), (steps a, b in claim);

one assumption being that a circle is used to pass through three consecutive points ri-1, ri, ri+1, in order to make the tangent in ri match that circle (see formulas (5) to (7));

the other assumption being that there is continuity of the tangent vector (see first half of page 193 including formula (4)), i.e. indirectly the tangent in ri+1 is calculated within said formula (based on a circle in the present interpolation via the coefficient of di+2;

based on this formula (3) and said two assumptions a smooth curve between ri and ri+1 is found using the corresponding position vectors and indirectly also the tangent vectors as in step c;

thus a point sequence connecting curve based on spline interpolation between every two adjacent consecutive points is determined (step d of claim).

Therefore the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel, since according to claim 1, the tangent vectors are determined explicitly and not within the algorithm.

INVENTIVE STEP: No
It is however generally known to the person skilled in the art that the explicit tangent calculations is an equivalent to the indirect tangent calculation of document PA#2 and can be interchanged with that feature
where circumstances make it desirable.

NOVELTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim. The prior art 2 does not disclose step (c) and (d) of the claim. Therefore neither prior art discloses the claimed invention.

INVENTIVE STEP

No: The prior art 1 discloses the step (c) and (d) of the claim. The prior art 2 discloses step (a) and (b) of the claim. Both prior art is in the art of interpolation. The effect of the claimed invention is derivable from the prior arts.
(Prior art 2 discloses
(a) An efficient algorithm is given for constructing a smooth curve through an arbitrary sequence of data points. It makes the direction of the curve at each data point that of a circle through that point and the two adjacent data points.(see p192 l6-l11)
(b) a relationship of the form ((5) of p193)
(c) Computational simplicity would dictate the choice n=2, and fortunately this is the choice which makes the tangent match a circle through that and the two adjacent points. (see p193 l22-l24)
Any tangent vector is applicable to the data point , therefor it would be arbitrarily determined. The prior art 2 discloses , even if from the different view point, that n=2 is the choice which makes the tangent match a circle through that and the two adjacent points. The claimed invention could easily have been made by adopting the tangent from a circle in the prior art 2 as the tangent vector of the prior art 1. Furthermore, prominent effect is not expected from adopting the tangent from a circle in the prior art 2 as the tangent vector of the prior art 1.)

See[2]

See[2]

See[2]

See[2]

Statutory subject-matter: No
- Closest Prior Art CPA: PA#2
- Diff.:using an explicit calculation of the tangent vectors
- Effect/ Obj. Problem: different curve calculation by computer
- Field: the skills required for solving the objective problem exclusively reside in the fields of mathematics and pure programming which are excluded from patentability (A. 52(2)(a), (c), EPC).

See[2]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: No
Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc. Prior art No.2 (Midgley) teaches at page 193 the computation of a tangent at a particular center point by making a "tangent match a circle through that [point] and the two adjacent points. "One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the values for the tangents at the various points using the teaching of Midgley in the Ferguson Induction Equation in order to determine a curved surface. Moreover, Midgley is found in a computer graphics magazine making its use with a computer obvious. Accordingly, claim2 would have been obvious over prior art Nos. 1+2, since it would have been obvious to perform the method using computer graphics in view of the teaching of Midgley.

See[7]

NOVELTY: Yes
The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim. The prior art 2 does not disclose step (c) and (d) of the claim. Therefore neither prior art discloses the claimed invention.

See[3]

1

1

See[3]

Statutory Subject Matter: Yes
- CPA: PA#2
- Diff.: applying said method for machining.
- Field: technical.

See[3]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: No
Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc. Prior art No.2 (Midgley) teaches at page 193 the computation of a tangent at a particular center point by making a "tangent match a circle through that [point] and the two adjacent points. "One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the values for the tangents at the various points using the teaching of Midgley in the Ferguson Induction Equation in order to determine a curved surface. Moreover, the Midgley article is found in the computer graphics magazine suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art that it pertains to computer graphics and image processing. Those of ordinary skill in the machine tool art would look to the computer graphics arts for solutions to machine tool problems. Accordingly, claim 3 would be obvious in view of prior art Nos. 1+2, since it would have been obvious to perform the method for machine tooling in view of the fact that it is well known to look to the teachings of the computer graphics arts for solutions to machine tool applications. Note that the correlation between computer-aided design and manufacturing is explained in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Electronics and Computers, (2nd Ed. 1988), wherein CAD has expanded to include solids modeling (see page 157) and that CAM was first introduced in conjunction with N/C machines and once the path is verified by the user, the computer produces a N/C readable tape or disk to be used in direct numerical control (at page 158).

NOVELTY: Yes
INVENTIVE STEP: No
For a skilled person who knows that in order to get the curved surfaces for machining an interpolation between data points is necessary with said explicit tangent calculation and arrive at the method of the claim.

NOVENTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim. The prior art 2 does not disclose step (c) and (d) of the claim. Therefor neither prior art discloses the claimed invention.

INVENTIVE STEP
Yes: Neither the prior art 1 nor prior art 2 discloses machining curved surface.

See[4]

4:
It is assumed that the person skilled in the art would know that as a final step the machining of the three dimensional curved surface has to be done according to the point sequence connecting curve (see claim 3).

1

See[4]

See[9]

See[4]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: No
Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc and determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc. Prior art No.2 "Isotropic Four-Point Interpolation", by James E. Midgley, June 8, 1979, Computer Graphics and Image Processing II, 192-196 (1979), (hereinafter Midgley) teaches at page 193 the computation of a tangent at a particular center point by making a "tangent match a circle through that [point] and the two adjacent points." One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the values for the tangents at the various points using the teaching of Midgley in the Ferguson Induction Equation in order to determine a curved surface. Accordingly, claim 4 would have been obvious over the combination of prior art Nos.1+2

See[9]

NOVENTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim. The prior art 2 does not disclose step (c) and (d) of the claim. Therefore neither prior art discloses the claimed invention.

INVENTIVE STEP
Yes: Neither the prior art 1 nor prior art 2 discloses machining curved surface.

See[5]

1

4
See[5]

See[5]

- CPA: PA#2
- Diff.: display of a three-dimensional curved surface.
- Effect / Obj. problem: three-dimensional curved surface display
- field: technical

See[5]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: No
Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc. Prior art No. 2 "Isotropic Four-Point Interpolation", by James E. Midgley, June 8, 1979, Computer Graphics and Image Processing II, 192-196 (1979), (hereinafter Midgley) teaches at page 193 the computation of a tangent at a particular center point by making a "tangent match a circle through that [point] and the two adjacent points." One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the values for the tangents at the various points using the teaching of Midgley in the Ferguson Induction Equation in order to determine a curved surface. Moreover, the Midgley article is found in the computer graphics magazine suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art that it pertains to computer graphics and image processing. Accordingly, claim 5 would be obvious over prior art Nos.1+2, since it would have been obvious to perform the method using computer graphics in view of the teaching of Midgley.

For a skilled person who wants to display a three-dimensional curved surface it is obvious to use the method disclosed in PA#2 (see [7] above) that can be applied in any dimension and shows the display of a two-dimensional curve (fig. 1) together with said explicit tangent calculation and thus arrive at the method of the claim.

NOVELTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) , and displaying curved surface of the claim. The prior art 2 does not disclose step (c) and (d) , and displaying curved surface of the claim. Therefore neither prior art discloses the claimed invention.

INVENTIVE STEP
No: The expression "displaying" in the claim means nothing more than output because it has no display control feature. The claimed invention is therefore forseeable from the prior art 1+2.

See[6]

1

1

See[6]

See[6]

See[6]

NOVELTY: Yes
NONOBVIOUSNESS: No

Missing from prior art No.1 basic reference are the steps of determining a circular arc determining the tangent vectors contacting the circular arc. Prior art No.2 "Isotropic Four-Point Interpolation", by James E. Midgley, June 8, 1979, Computer Graphics and Image Processing II, 192-196 (1979), (hereinafter Midgley) teaches at page 193 the computation of a tangent at a particular center point by making a "tangent match a circle through that [point] and the two adjacent points." One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the values for the tangents at the various points using the teaching of Midgley in the Ferguson Induction Equation in order to determine a curved surface. Moreover, Midgley is found in a computer graphics magazine making its use with a computer obvious. Accordingly, claim 6 is rendered obvious by the combination of prior art Nos. 1+2.

NOVELTY Yes:
INVENTIVE STEP No:

For a skilled person who wants to control a curve generating apparatus as set out in lines 1-4 of claim 6 which is a standard computer, it is obvious to use the method disclosed in PA#2 together with said explicit tagent calculation (see [7]) to control said curve generation.

NOVELTY
Yes: The prior art 1 does not disclose the step (a) and (b) of the claim. The prior art 2 does not disclose step (c) and (d) of the claim. Therefore neither prior art discloses the claimed invention.

INVENTIVE STEP
No: The prior art 1 discloses the step (c) and (d) of the claim. The prior art 2 discloses step (a) and (b) of the claim. Both prior art is in the art of interpolation. The effect of the claimed invention is derivable from the prior arts.

Category 2 - The claim was interpreted based on "means or step plus function" limitations corresponding to the specification pages indicated. Further, the claim was vague and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, with respect to

(1) the difference or correspondence between "past time series data" and "historical data",

(2) the condition precedent for "initial predicted data",

(3) the condition precedent for "average past time series data",

(4) the distinction (if any) between the "past time series data storage means" and the "time series data storage means", and

(5) the distinction between "predictive data" and "predicted future data."
Moreover, the claim is not in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, (written description and enablement requirements) since the software programming technology to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention is no adequately set forth.

1.1 Claim interpretation: 4

Owing to the abstract formulation, the description had to be consulted in order to interpret the claim. Page 2, last paragraph to page 4, 1st paragraph of the description offer adequate support for claim 1. Nevertheless, claim 1 is not considered to fulfil the clarity requirements of A.84 and R29 EPC for the following reasons:

1.1.1
The wording "correction rule ... for correcting initial predicted data based on average past time series data" of claim 1 is misleading, because it suggests that the basis of correction is the average value of past time series data. However, it is clear from the description that average past time series data are used to create an initial prediction, which is subsequently corrected on the basis of correction rules. These rules take into consideration variable condition data (see page 3, last paragraph). This functional interrelation is derivable from the wording of claim 1. Thus, above wording is interpreted in the light of the description as "correction rule ... for correcting initial predicted data, the initial prediction being based on average past time series data, the correction rules taking into consideration said variable condition data".

1.1.2
The wording of claim 1 "predictor means .. predictive data storage means" is also misleading, because it actually refers to storage of the predicted data and not to the function of predicting as such. Thus, although the main functionality of claim 1 is supposed to be the prediction of future data, no actual prediction function is unambiguously derivable from the wording of the claim. The above wording is interpreted in the light of the description as "predictor means .. and correction rule table storage means, For performing said initial prediction and correction and storing the predicted future data.. predictive data storage means."

For the purpose of answering the following questions, above interpretations will be taken into consideration.

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

Yes:
The claim is in the category of flow chart Box 10 "A specific machine or manufacture." Claim 1 is directed to an automatic predictor system which is defined in the specification at page 2 through 5 and Fig. 1 through 7 as including a terminal 1, a variable condition setter 2, a predictor 3 and a correction rule table 15, all of which are machine/apparatus components which render the claim statutory. Moreover, in accordance with the "Examination Guidelines For Claims: Reciting a "Means or Step Plus Function" Limitation in Accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph" 1162 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 59 (May 17, 1994), the means or step limitations should be interpreted in accordance with 112, 6th Paragraph as limited to the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and equivalents. However, the claim is not in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph as it is vague and indefinite for the reasons discussed above and since the interrelationships between the corresponding elements are not adequately set forth. Further, the claim is incomplete in that it is uncertain which component(s) conduct the execution of the calculations to determine the predictions based upon the historical data and variable conditions.

No:
1.2 Statutory subject matter : NO

1.2.1 Prima facie, no subject-matter explicitly stated under A. 52(2) EPC is claimed as such.

1.2.2
The difference between the subject-matter claimed and the prior art (henceforth to be denoted as D1) lies within the calculation of the initial predictive data. D1 calculates the initial predictive data by extrapolation from a series of past data, whereas claim 1 calculate those by averaging a series of past data.

1.2.3
The effect of this different type of calculation to the subject-matter claimed, considered as a whole, is merely a different arithmetic value for the initial predictive data.

1.2.4
The objective problem is to create an initial predictive value for data that are subject to a different type of evolution with time. Claim 1 refers to data that evolve according to a certain statistical law. Future data (before correction) are expected to be within the average of past data. D1 refers to data that evolve according to a different statistical law. Future data (also before correction) are expected to obey the same mathematical function as past data, such that they can be approximated by extrapolation.

1.2.5
According to the above, the objective problem lies within the field of statistics and mathematics. It is a fact that the skills necessary to understand the objective problem and to conceive of the solution offered by claim 1 are those of a mathematician. Therefore, the claimed subject-matter, considered as a whole, does not provide any contribution to the art in a field not excluded from patentability according to A. 52(2), i.e. claim 1 relates to non-patentable subject-matter (see also A. 52(3) EPC).

Yes:
The solution is such as utilize natural laws.

Claim 1 has matters which suggest indirectly how the hardware resources of computer are utilized in processing. Therefore, the solution is information processing in which hardware resources are used.

The automatic predictor system hypothetical prior art includes a variable condition data storage means for storing condition data (10), past time series data storage means (11) and correction rule table storage means (15), and predictor means (3). As to the showing in the prior art of the "correction rules taking into consideration said variable condition data", note that "the correction rules are activated by information from the variable condition data 10 to correct the predictive value." Note further that the predictor means (3) is operatively associated with variable condition data storage means (1), past time series data storage means (11) and correction rule table storage means (15). Moreover, it appears that "the predictor (3) is ....supplied with the update or newly inputted contents of variable condition data 10...., time series data 11...., and correction rule table 15 and it performs calculation to predict future data." The "initial prediction" correlates to the first calculation of "predictive data ... from a series of past data by extrapolation." The correction correlates to the activation of the information from the variable condition data 10 to correct the predictive value. Although no storage means is shown or described other than the table shown in Figure 2 of the hypothetical prior art, this would have been inherent in that the predicted data must be stored in order to be manipulated and displayed as suggested by Figure 2 and described in the last paragraph of the prior art description. Accordingly, the invention of claim 1 is anticipated and rendered obvious.

1.3
NOVELTY: Yes, see point 1.2.2 above

1.4
INVENTIVE STEP: No
Realizing that the data evolution can be appropriately approximated by interpolation instead of averaging is readily suggested by the nature of the data and well within the practice of the person skilled in the art. The skilled person, aware of the teaching of D1 and faced with the problem posed, would necessarily arrive to the subject-matter claimed without the exercise of inventive skill.

NOVELTY: No
The hypothetical prior art discloses the identical matters with the claimed invention.

INVENTIVE STEP: No

Category 2 - The claim was interpreted based on "means or step plus function" limitations corresponding to the specification at page 2. Moreover, the claim has a lack of clarity as it was vague and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, for the reasons applicable to claim 1 since it is dependent on claim1. moreover, the claim is not in accordance with 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph, (written description and enablement requirements) for the same reasons as are applicable to claim 1 and since the software programming technology to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention for electric power requirements is not adequately set forth.

4 , see also corresponding comments under 1.1. above

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

The claim is in the category of flow chart Box 10 "A specific machine or manufacture" for the same reasons that are applicable to claim 1 (upon which it depends).

2.2 Statutory Subject Matter: Yes

2.2.1
Prima facie, no subject-matter explicitly stated under A. 52(2) EPC is claimed as such.

2.2.2
The difference between the subject-matter claimed and D1 lies within the calculation of the initial predictive data and the specific type of data (electric power supply demand data).

2.2.3
The effect of these differences to the subject-matter claimed, considered as a whole, is a different arithmetic value for the initial predictive data and the specific type of the data (specific field of implementation) as opposed to the general type of data referred to in D1.

2.2.4
The objective problem is similar to the one set out under point 1.2.4 above (to create an initial predictive value for data that are subject to a different type of evolution with time), but in the specific field of electric power supply.

2.2.5
The objective problem lies , at least partly, within the field of statistics and mathematics. It is debatable whether the objective problem lies also within an engineering field owing to the specific type of data and field of implementation. The skills needed to understand the objective problem and to conceive of the solution could be regarded as the skills of an electric power engineer and a mathematician. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, it is judged that claim 2 fulfils the requirements of A.52(2) and (3) EPC.

Yes:
The solution is such as utilize natural laws.

Claim 2 has matters which suggest indirectly how the hardware resources of computer are utilized in processing. Therefore, the solution is information processing in which hardware resources are used.

Claim 2 incorporates the provision of "an automatic predictor system according to claim 1 where in said past time series data is comprised from electric power supply demand." The hypothetical prior art for case 2 does not disclose electric power supply demand calculations so there is no anticipation of claim 2. The issue becomes whether it would have been obvious to utilize the automatic predictor system of the prior art for electric power system demand. The only disclosure in this regard is page 4 (in the first embodiment disclosure) which reads "[i]t is apparent to the person skilled in the art that this predictor system can apply not only sales volume prediction but also various kinds of prediction; e.g. electric power supply prediction, traffic volume prediction, etc." Although applicant's comments were directed to the invention disclosed, due to the similarity of subject matter, an inference could be drawn that the comment applied also to the hypothetical prior art. Accordingly, an argument could be made that with respect to the predictor system of the hypothetical prior art it would also appear apparent to the person skilled in the art that this predictor system can apply not only sales volume prediction but also various kinds of prediction; e.g. electric power supply prediction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to the artisan in view of this tacit admission.

2.3
NOVELTY: Yes, see point 2.2.2 above.

2.4
INVENTIVE STEP: Yes
It is debatable whether a skilled person, aware of the teaching of D1, would apply such teaching also to the specific field of implementation (electric power supply). Moreover, the question arises, whether the skilled person, faced with the problem posed, would take D1 into consideration in the first place. Owing to the general nature of D1, and to the absence of any indication of a particular field in which the teaching can be applied, it is judged that in any case, the subject-matter claimed is not rendered obvious by D1.

NOVELTY: Yes

Since the hypothetical prior art does not disclose the prediction of electric power supply, the claimed invention would be novel.

INVENTIVE STEP: No
Since the prediction of electric power supply is usually practiced by electric power supply company in generating electric power, the claimed invention could easily have been made on the basis of hypothetical prior art by limiting the subject of the prediction to the electric power demand, the time series data to the data concerning electric power demand respectively.

The claim was literally interpreted; i.e., all claim limitations were taken into account. The claim has a lack of clarity as it is vague and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, since the interrelationships between the corresponding steps is not adequately set forth, particularly with respect to predicting sales volume based on variable condition data, and "correction rule" which is undefined and lacks antecedent basis. Moreover, the claim is not in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, (written description and enablement requirements) since the software programming technology to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention is not adequately set forth.

3.1 Claim interpretation: 4

Vague expressions and/or evidently non-technical terms were ignored. Moreover, owing to the somewhat abstract formulation, the description had to be consulted in order to interpret the claim. Nevertheless, claim 3 is not considered to fulfil the clarity requirements of A. 84 and R. 29 EPC for the following reasons:

3.1.1
The vague expressions "and the like" and "entertainment", which obscure the extent of protection of the claim and create a state of legal uncertainty as to what is in fact protected, contravene A. 84 and R. 29 EPC.

3.1.2
The sales volume predicting step of claim 3 is drafted in a functional way, by stating the result to be achieved without defining the concrete steps to achieve this result. In particular, no concrete method steps are defined for the prediction calculation. Moreover, no concrete technical information is provided on the correction rules. Such way of claiming leaves the reader in a state of uncertainty as to the concrete technical features put under protection, in contravention of A.84 and R.29 EPC.

For the purpose of answering the following questions, the vague expressions under 3.1.1 above were ignored. The predicting step was literally interpreted.

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

Nonstatutory:

The claim is in the category of flow chart Box 12 "Merely manipulates abstract idea or solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application." Accordingly, it is nonstatutory subject matter.

3.2 Statutory subject matter : No

Claim 3 explicitly claims a method of doing business, which is as such excluded from patentability by A..52(2) and (3) EPC.

No
The solution is not as such utilize natural laws.

Information processing of the claim defines predicting sales volume of various resources sold in mass at a supermarket or the like based on variable condition data and correction rule. This information processing is apparently based on the economic law, wherein natural laws are not utilized.

The claim has no matters which suggest, directly or indirectly, how the hardware resources of computer is utilized in processing.

Since an example of the "Hypothetical Prior art" for case 2 includes a terminal, a variable condition setter 2, a predictor 3, past time series data 11 and a correction rule table 15, the operation of these elements would render the claim obvious. Since certain elements such "including weather, entertainment, events at competitive shops or bargain sales" are deficient from the hypothetical prior art, the invention would be novel; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have included such factors in the variable conditions for the sales calculations so as to render the invention obvious.

3.3 NOVELTY: Yes

The differences between the subject-matter of claim 3 and D1 is that claim3 refers to prediction of specific data (sales volume data in a supermarket), that claim 3 refers also to specific condition data (weather etc), that according to claim 3 specific point-of-sales (POS) data are gathered and taken into consideration for the sales volume prediction, and that in claim 3 no separate initial prediction and subsequent rule application take place, but a single step of prediction according to variable condition data, POS data and correction rule is performed.

3.4 INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

The differences set out under point 3.3 above are not rendered obvious by D1.

NOVELTY: Yes

Since sales volume prediction is not described in the hypothetical prior art, the claimed invention is novel.

INVENTIVE STEP: Yes

As to limiting subject of prediction to the sales volume prediction, the claimed invention lacks inventive step on the same reason as claim 2. The hypothetical prior art, however, does not disclose variable conditon data including weather, entertainment, events at competitive shops or bargain sales. The matters mentioned above could not have been easily arrived at, either. Therefore the claimed invention has (? involve) inventive step.

Category 2 - The claim was interpreted based on "means or step plus function" limitations corresponding to the specification pages indicated. Moreover, the claim was vague and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, since the interrelationships between the corresponding elements is not adequately set forth, and specifically with respect to claim terminology

(1) the undefined "initial predicted sales volumes based on average sales conditions" and how the correction is achieved,

(2) the lack of antecedent basis for "various resources" and

(3) the lack of antecedent basis for "initial predicted sales volume."
Moreover, the claim is not in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, (written description and enablement requirements) since the software programming technology to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention is not adequately set forth.

4.1 Claim interpretation:4

The comments made under 3.1.1 apply also to the corresponding wordings of claim 4 accordingly. The vague terms were ignored. The function of the predictor means was literally interpreted. The comments under 1.1.1 above apply to the correction of initial predicted sales volumes accordingly.

1 (The claim was literally interpreted; i.e. all claim limitations were taken into account.)

Statutory:

The claim is in the category of flowchart Box 10 "A specific machine of manufacture." Claim 4 is directed to an automatic predictor system which is defined in the specification at page 2 as including a terminal1, a variable condition setter 2, a predictor3 and a correction rule table 15, all of which are machine/apparatus components which render the claim statutory. In accordance with the "Examination Guidelines For Claims: Reciting a "Means of Step Plus Function" Limitation in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph" 1162 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 59 (May 17,1994), the means or step limitations should be interpreted in accordance with 112, 6th paragraph as limited to the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and equivalents.

4.2 Statutory subject matter: No

4.2.1
Prima facie, no subject-matter explicitly stated under A. 52(2) EPC is claimed as such.

4.2.2
The differences between the subject-matter of claim 4 and D1 are that claim 4 refers to prediction of specific data (sales volume data in a supermarket), that claim 4 refers also to specific condition data (weather etc), that according to claim 4 specific point-of-sales (POS) data are stored and taken into consideration for the sales volume prediction, and that initial prediction of sales volume (before rule application) is based on average sales conditions.

4.2.3
The effects of these differences to the subject-matter of claim 4, considered as a whole,are a prediction in the field of sales, and a different arithmetic value for the initial predictive data.

4.2.4
The objective problem is to create a prediction in the field of sales, and furthermore, a prediction adapted to the nature of the data in this field.

4.2.5
This objective problem lies within the field of doing business, statistics and mathematics. It is a fact that the skills necessary to understand the objective problem and to conceive of the solution offered by claim 4 are those of a salesperson and those of a mathematician. Therefore, the claimed subject-matter, considered as a whole, does not provide any contribution to the art in a field not excluded from patentability according to A. 52(2) i.e. claim 4 reates to non-patentable subject-matter(see also A.52(3)EPC).

Yes:
The solution is such as utilize natural laws.

Claim 4 has matters which suggest indirectly how the hardware resources of computer are utilized in processing. Therefore, the solution is information processing in which hardware resources are used.

The hypothetical prior art for case 2 comprises a terminal, a variable condition setter 2, a predictor 3, past time series data 11 and a correction rule table 15. Although the storage of "condition data reflecting variable sales conditions including weather, entertainment, events at competitive shops or bargain sales" is not disclosed in the hypothetical, Office notice is taken that such data would logically be used to reflect circumstances for sales and would have been an obvious addition Point of sale data could be inferred from the description of the conventional system at page 1. The insertion of the limitation "based on the average sales conditions" in claim 4 could simply be the amounts sold the previous day or week. Accordingly, the invention of claim 4 is obvious over the hypothetical prior art.

NOVELTY: Yes, see point 4.2.2. above

4.4

INVENTIVE STEP: Yes, see the differences under point 4.2.2 above are not rendered obvious by D1.

NOVELTY: Yes
The same reason as claim 3.

INVENTIVE STEP: Yes
The same reason as claim 3.