Appeal No. 1997-0521
Application No. 08/105,839
Tolin does not teach the translation of functional computer programs to other computer
languages, and the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why Tolin
alone would have suggested to skilled artisans to apply the teaching regarding human
language translation to translation of computer programs for use by machines.
Appellant argues Tolin does not teach or suggest inputting statements in said
original language, and inputting the functional equivalent of said original language
statements in said target language. (See answer at page 8.) We agree with appellant.
While the examiner acknowledges this argument, the examiner does not address or
respond to the lack of a teaching in Tolin with respect to the inputting of the functional
equivalents. The examiner maintains that the intermediate language of Tolin is used to find
the equivalent sentence in the target language and that the operator selects rules from
memory. (See answer at page 4.) The examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Tolin
for his reasoning, and likewise, we find no support for the examiner’s position.
Therefore, since Tolin alone does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed invention,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claim 7.
With respect to claims 2-6, 9 and 10, the examiner adds Mohri to teach the use of
keywords and word sections in a table driven system. Mohri like Tolin is a human
language translator and does not teach or fairly suggest the use of a translator to translate
computer programs from one machine language to another. Therefore, Mohri does not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007