Appeal No. 2000-0222
Application No. 08/938,044
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Chong. Claims 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chong.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 24, mailed Jun. 21, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 23, filed Mar. 15, 1999) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant argues that Chong is silent as to any details of the OCR system. (See
brief at pages 8, 12 and 13.) We agree with appellant that Chong provides only a
cursory discussion of the OCR system to be used in the machine translation system.
While Chong mentions OCR with respect to the recognition of the characters at the
input of the system to identify readable text and cover page designation (Chong at
columns 6 and 7), Chong discloses that the "translation functions are kept separate
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007