Appeal No. 1997-0521 Application No. 08/105,839 remedy the deficiency in Tolin alone. Hence, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-6, 9 and 10. With respect to claim 8, the examiner adds Bowles with Tolin. Appellant argues that the deficiencies in Tolin alone are not remedied by Bowles. We agree with appellant. While Bowles is the closest prior art to translating computer programs from one computer language into another computer language, the examiner has not identified a conversion rule input means which produces a conversion model created by inputting statements in said original language, and inputting the functional equivalent of said original language statements in said target language. Bowles is silent as to how the model and rules are generated, and is concerned with the multipass functioning of the translator. Moreover, the examiner has not provided any cogent line of reasoning why or how a skilled artisan would have known how to input the model and rules. Nor has the examiner provided any suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings beyond the motivation to convert plural statements into singular statements. (See answer at page 8.) Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 8 under the combination of Tolin and Bowles. CLAIMS 11-15 Appellant argues that the examiner has not identified the basis of the rejection of claims 11-15 in the final rejection. (See brief at page 11.) We agree with appellant. The examiner is under a duty to set forth the grounds upon which the claims are denied 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007