Appeal No. 2002-0655
Application No. 08/743,201
The appellants’ contentions to the contrary notwithstanding
(brief, pages 9 through 11; reply brief, pages 4 through 8), we
agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that Hinks discloses a
graphical user interface (GUI) wherein the user of the translation
system (Figures 2 and 3) creates a set of specifications describing
user-desired processing services (i.e., batch translation of
Windows Notepad from English to another language) (column 5, line
67 through column 6, line 14; column 6, line 62 through column 7,
line 4; column 8, line 13; column 10, lines 7 through 11; column
11, lines 12 through 24) by accessing and manipulating “the various
resources of the program for carrying out translation” (column 8,
lines 6 through 9). We additionally agree with the examiner
(answer, page 4) that the resource parser 330 is a processing
subsystem that operates in conjunction with other portions of the
system (e.g., the editors 350 and the tools 353) to perform batch
translation in response to the specifications created for
performing the translation (column 7, line 65 through column 8,
line 13). We do not, however, agree with the examiner’s reasoning
(answer, page 4) that the TSHELL 310 performs the claimed function
of “providing communication of the specifications from the design
tool subsystem to the processing subsystem.” Although the TSHELL
serves as a “front end and user interface to the translators”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007