Appeal No. 2001-0728
Application No. 08/687,886
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the examiner (final rejection, pages 3 through 14; answer,
pages 5 through 17), and for the additional reasons set forth infra, we will sustain all of the
rejections of record of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 19, 21 through 26 and 28 through 30. On the
other hand, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 9, 20 and 27.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 15 and 22, we agree with the examiner
that Brown teaches “automatically identifying the source language for the purpose of machine
translation” (answer, page 5). In a first embodiment, Brown discloses a translation system that
operates without human/user assistance (Abstract; column 9, lines 55 through 57; column 93, lines 8
through 13; Figure 4), and in a second embodiment, Brown discloses a “user-aided translation
system” (column 10, lines 1 through 19; Figure 5). Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 5 through 8)
to the contrary notwithstanding, Brown does teach in the first embodiment that the system, as
opposed to the user, identifies the source language. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1, 15 and 22 is sustained. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 2, 16, 23 and 29 is likewise
sustained because appellants have chosen to let these claims stand or fall with claims 1, 15 and 22
(brief, page 4).
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 3 is sustained because the French to English
translation steps described throughout Brown will not occur if the source text is in English.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 4, 17 and 24 is sustained because we agree with
the examiner (final rejection, pages 4 and 5; answer, pages 9 and 10) that the “dictionary” disclosed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007