Appeal No. 2005-0274
Application No. 09/738,319
and column 6, line 63 through column 7, line 5, meets the claim language regarding
“skeletising.”
In reviewing those portions of Liddy, the reference indicates that analogous
processing determines the requirements for document matching and that alternative
representations of documents and queries may be both conceptual and term-based.
But we find nothing in these recitations indicating that there is any processing of the first
representations into second representations wherein the second representations are
produced by “replacing the linguistic information with abstract variables in each of the
second representations,” as required by the instant claims.
In the response to appellants’ argument in this regard, the examiner points out
that Figure 2 of Liddy indicates a series of processing steps starting with the input of
linguistic information and ending with the generation of the monolingual concept vector
MCVG where the final representation is used for searches (answer-page 11). Merely
because Liddy starts with an input of linguistic information and ends with a monolingual
concept vector is no evidence that this resulting monolingual concept vector (assuming
the examiner intends for this monolingual concept vector to be the claimed “second
representation”), is such that the linguistic information is replaced with abstract variables
in each of the monolingual concept vectors, as claimed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007