Appeal No. 2004-1365
Application No. 09/139,808
Further appellant argues, on page 9 of the brief, that figure 7 of Ho may depict a
method of modifying the form of display but not the properties. Additionally,
appellant argues, on page 11 of the brief, that Ho does not teach parsing the
computer language independent functional expression.
In response to appellant’s arguments, the examiner states, on page 3 of
the answer, that Ho does teach that the user can edit the entry form and relies
upon figures 3A and 7 and their supporting discussion to support this assertion.
Further the examiner states, on page 4 of the answer, that “Ho explicitly
illustrates parsing functions by scanning an entry form, and breaking down (or
parsing) the entry form into smaller objects (Figs. 4-6, 9), and the smaller objects
or the computer independent functional expression can then be further parsed
(column 10 lines 45-46 and Figs. 5-6).”
We are not convinced by the examiner’s reasoning. We find that Ho
teaches scanning a paper form, figure 3 step 202, and that each aspect of the
data entry form is considered an object and each includes a property (see
column 4 lines 67 through column 5, line 71). Ho teaches that a user sets the
property of each object. Figures 7 and 8 depict the user interface that is used to
set the properties; we consider these figures to depict the claimed forms.
Contrary to appellant’s arguments, we consider the functions shown in the figure
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007