Appeal No. 2000-0810
Application 08/699,412
Accordingly, it is without adequate basis for the examiner to find that “Kucera is
directed to mathematically determining the genre of a document based on the tallying
[of] the number of familiar words in a body of text.” The scope and content of Kucera
has been misstated by the examiner.
Secondly, each of claims 1, 8 and 16 requires a plurality of tables each of which
containing a selection of most frequently used words in a respective candidate
language. With regard to this feature, the examiner relied on Kucera’s teaching of only
a single list of frequently used words in the language in which the document is written.
The examiner’s position is that a mere duplication of parts is well within the basic
knowledge and skill possessed by one with ordinary skill in the art. That view is without
merit, as applied to the situation here.
The examiner has articulated no reason for one with ordinary skill in the art to
extend Kucera’s system to having multiple lists of frequently used words, one list for a
different candidate language as is required by the appellants’ claims. An example of
mere duplication of the sort the examiner refers to would be using two shorter lists
instead of one long list, or using three or four bolts instead of two bolts to fasten two
plates together. Here, the idea of having multiple word tables where each word table is
associated with a different candidate language and stores a frequently used word
belonging to that candidate language cannot be regarded as a mere duplication of
parts, because no structure initially exists in Kucera’s system for processing documents
in a second candidate language. Where there is nothing to begin with for a second
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007