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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007