Appeal No. 2004-2086 Page 5
Application No. 09/238,800
document is translated into), that Boucher cannot be attributed
with teaching the intercepting step of appellants' claims.
The examiner's response (answer, page 5) is that the claims
do not recite an "automatic (or dynamic) recipient side
translation.” It is further asserted by the examiner (answer,
page 6) that in Boucher, item 104 of figure 2A intercepts an
incoming message in a first human language and translates it into
a different language. The examiner additionally asserts (id.)
that claim 1 does not recite that the recipient selects the
language he/she desires, and argues that a language desired by a
recipient is not equivalent to a language selected by a
recipient.
We begin with claim construction. Claim 1 recites in the
preamble that the communication is received by the data
processing system in a human language desired by a recipient of
the communication. Although a preamble is not normally given
patentable weight, because the claim specifically refers to the
desired human language twice in the body of the claim, we find
that the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim, and
should be given weight. From our review of Boucher, we agree
with appellants that Boucher is directed to a translation system
where the sender determines the language the document is to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007