Appeal No. 2001-0728
Application No. 08/687,886
document from a source language” (brief, pages 11 and 12). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of these claims is sustained.
Appellants’ arguments (brief, page 12) to the contrary notwithstanding, Brown discloses
“sequences of characters” (column 13, lines 1 through 26) and frequencies in a sample of words
(column 30, lines 52 through 57) that are used in the overall translation system to identify the source
language. As a result of such teachings, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 11 is sustained.
Turning next to claim 12, Brown explicitly states that although French to English is
discussed throughout the disclosure, other natural languages, artificial languages and programming
languages are easily adaptable to the translation system (column 7, line 64 through column 8, line
7). For this reason, and the reasons expressed by the examiner (final rejection, pages 10 and 11), the
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 12 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 30 is sustained because Brown discloses that the
computer platform 1014 is connected to an external network 1010 (Figure 10; column 12, lines 21
through 31).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13 and 14 is sustained because as indicated supra
Brown does “teach or suggest ‘identifying a source language in which each piece of text is written’”
in an automatic manner (brief, pages 15 and 16), and because the examiner has set forth credible
reasons (final rejection, pages 13 and 14) why the skilled artisan would have combined the
teachings of the references.
DECISION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007