Appeal No. 2004-0963
Application No. 09/384,088
Halstead to have arrived at the subject matter of claim 37 and claim 40 as
representative of claims 40-43.
Essentially, from our study of Tateno, Halstead and Marshall, we are
led to agree with and are persuaded by appellants’ remarks with respect to
claim 37 set forth at the bottom of page 14 of the brief on appeal which we
reproduce here:
Appellants respectfully submit that the portions relied upon
by the Examiner in Marshall discloses matching a pattern of
characters (i.e., a group of characters as a whole) against a
text to identify occurrences of matching patterns in the text. In
contrast, the Appellants’ invention is directed to comparing
representations of each character of a text against pre-selected
character set indicators of a bitmask.
In a corresponding manner, the subject matter of representative
claim 40 on appeal sets forth various recitations of bitmasks yet the
examiner fails to address in detail the particular clauses comprising the
bulk of the body of this representative claim. We agree with appellants’
observation at the top of page 16 of the brief that the examiner apparently
has not addressed in detail these limitations as they apply to representative
claim 40 on appeal. The latter pages of the remarks portion of the answer
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007