Appeal No. 1997-4219
Application No. 08/315,745
this cannot be a “cross reference,” as required by the instant
claims.
In Pham, the CDR does appear to operate bidirectionally,
i.e., “conversion routines needed are written to convert data
back and forth from a local machine and language format to a
machine- and language- independent data format” [column 16,
lines 34-37]. However, while this disclosure indicates that
either the source system or the target system might provide
inputs for “cross referencing,” to the extent that Pham’s CDR
may be considered a “cross reference,” there is no indication
that both source and target systems provide inputs as required
by the cross referencing of the instant claimed invention.
Additionally, claims 7 and 9 both require a “user
interface coupled” between said cross referencing system and
said translator [claim 7] or “to said means for cross
referencing for providing user control” [claim 9]. We find no
such teaching or suggestion in either Jack or Pham. The
examiner’s only treatment of this limitation occurs in the
response section of the answer wherein the examiner states
that user interfacing “is nothing more than visual/display
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007