Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
assertion that Robinson's word list includes words that are not displayed to
the user, and that the technique for promoting and demoting words in
Robinson assumes that non-displayed words are shifted [id.]. The examiner
points out that the negative limitation of the claim reads: “without setting
values for entities not presented to the user” [id.]. In particular, the
examiner argues that the recited negative limitation does not require all
entities not presented to the user [id.].
In the reply brief appellant argues that appellant’s statement “the
technique for promoting and demoting words in Robinson assumes that non-
displayed words are shifted” is supported in Robinson at col. 31, line 60
through col. 32, line 10 where it is clear that the combination of explicit
demotion and explicit promotion of displayed words results in open index
values that would be filled by shifting non-displayed words [reply brief, page
5]. Appellant further asserts that whether or not the explicit demotion is
performed in every case is irrelevant [reply brief, page 5, cont’d page 6].
Appellant asserts that the fact that it is performed in some cases, and that
when it is performed it relies on words being shifted that were not displayed
to the user, indicates that the lexicon contains words that were not displayed
to the user [reply brief, page 6]. Appellant concludes that given the
existence of non-displayed words in the lexicon, even the “common”
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007