Appeal No. 2001-0728
Application No. 08/687,886
by Brown (Figure 6) is an “index” because an index is broadly defined in the dictionary used by the
examiner as a “list . . . arranged in alphabetical order . . . .” In fact, the same dictionary defines a
“dictionary” as a reference source “giving for words of one language equivalents in another.”
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with claims 3, 4, 17 and 24, the 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 5 through 7, 18 and 25 is sustained.
Turning to claims 8, 19 and 26, appellants’ argument (brief, pages 10 and 11) tying the
claimed “links” to the Internet (e.g., hypertext link) is without merit since the claims on appeal are
not limited to such a network. Of equal importance, the “links” in the noted claims are not limited
to either changing of “hypertext link points” or pointing to “another location or document.” We
agree with the examiner that the broadly claimed “links” is readable on the linking of French text to
the French intermediate structures (final rejection, page 7). After all, they are broadly linked to each
other in the translation process. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 8, 19 and
26 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 9, 20 and 27 is reversed because we agree with
the appellants’ argument (brief, page 11) that the examiner has not successfully demonstrated that
the so-called “anchors” in Brown have anything to do with “links” or “inserting one address in place
of another.”
With respect to claims 10, 21 and 28, the markers and markup in the text noted by the
examiner (final rejection, pages 8 and 9) are “related to steps taken during the actual translating of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007