Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
paragraph [answer, pages 3 and 4]. We address independent claims 1 and
15 infra as separately argued by appellant in the briefs.
As per independent claim 1: (§ 112, first paragraph rejection)
Appellant notes that claim 1 includes the negative limitation of “setting
an anti-entity value based on the identified entity without setting values for
entities that were not presented to the user while interacting with the user”
[brief, page 3]. Appellant argues that the instant specification shows that
appellant had possession of the concept found in claim 1 [brief, page 4].
Appellant points to page 22, line 33 through page 23, line 6 of the instant
specification:
For example, if the user asks to book a flight from “Bill's house to
Florida” and the dialog system determines that there are a number of people
named Bill, it may ask if the user meant “Bill Smith.” If the user says “No,”
the domain expert can use that information to set an anti-entity value for
the entity “Bill Smith” at step 310.
Appellant notes that in the aforementioned example, the only anti-
entity value that is set is for an entity that was presented to the user [brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007