Appeal No. 2003-0434
Application No. 09/277,954
that data is transferred. The examiner’s contentions (answer,
page 8) to the contrary notwithstanding, the mere fact that the
tree structure disclosed by Nozaki (Figure 3) and the tree
structure disclosed by appellants (Figures 1 through 3) are
similar does not mean that they were transferred to their
respective working memories in the same manner (i.e., a serial
manner). As indicated by the appellants (reply brief, page 4),
the character sequences in Nozaki could have been transferred
into the working memory in a parallel manner. We additionally
agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page 10) that Nozaki
performs character prediction in the character prediction section
23 “based upon a partial input character string” entered by the
user of the entry device 11 (column 4, lines 30 through 41), and
does not “begin the prediction process using a partial
dictionary” (i.e., incomplete dataset) in the working memory.
In view of the foregoing, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 through 8 is reversed because Nozaki does not disclose
all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
The obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10 is reversed
because the voice recognition teachings of Yoshii do not cure the
noted shortcomings in the teachings of Nozaki.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007