Appeal No. 2003-0750
Application 09/310,650
(Answer, pages 5 and 6) that, given Appellants’s definition of
the term “similar” as “derived from one template” (specification,
page 9, lines 22-23), it is reasonable to interpret the claim
limitation “similar across hierarchies” as referring to node
structure. Taking this line of reasoning further, the Examiner
contends (id.) that, since all semantical units across
hierarchies are derived from the same template, they must be
structurally identical. The Examiner goes on to conclude
therefore that, since the present claim language “similar across
hierarchies” can be interpreted to read “structurally identical
across hierarchies,” and structurally identical nodes are
inherent in Nagao, the claim limitations are satisfied.
It is apparent to us, however, that even assuming, arguendo,
that the present claim language can be interpreted in the manner
suggested by the Examiner, there simply is no evidence before us
that would support the Examiner’s conclusion that structurally
identical nodes are inherent in Nagao. We particularly fail to
see how Nagao’s described automatic traverse of a tree structure
of words and links in a path search as asserted by the Examiner
(Answer, page 6) would lead to the conclusion that semantic units
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007