Appeal No. 2005-0274
Application No. 09/738,319
OPINION
Turning, first, to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e), a rejection for
anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a single prior art
document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention
without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With regard to independent claims 1 and 15, it is the examiner’s position that
Liddy discloses, in a multilingual document retrieval method, entering a query or
document for processing (in Figures 1 and 2, at elements 70, 110, and at column 2,
lines 42-65); corresponding to the receipt of input strings, and subjecting each
document to a sequence of processing steps where one of the initial steps includes part
of speech tagging (citing column 2, lines 55-60, and column 7, lines 21-46), which
corresponds to linguistically analyzing the input strings to generate a first representation
of each of the input strings, each of the first representations including linguistic
information; and generating both conceptual and term-based alternative representations
of the documents and queries with relevant information extracted from the documents
and indexed (citing column 6, lines 15-20, 63 through column 7, line 5,
and Figures 1 and 2), which corresponds to skeletising each of the first representations
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007