Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
by setting a surface semantic output value in the linguistic grammar [brief,
page 7]. Appellant notes that the Office Action alleges that Horiguchi (col.
20, line 48 et seq.) shows this limitation [id.]. Appellant argues that the
cited language of Horiguchi relates to a tokenizer that takes an input string
comprising a sequence of words and breaks it into individual tokens, and
does not relate to setting a surface semantic output in a linguistic grammar
as required by claim 11 [id.].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 13, ¶2]. The examiner notes
that the limitation in dispute is: “setting a surface semantic output value in
the linguistic grammar” [id.]. The examiner asserts that the term “surface
semantic output value” was not explicitly stated in the specification [id.,
emphasis added]. The examiner points to step 302 of the instant
specification that discloses converting the user input into a surface semantic
structure and parsing the input from the user by matching the input to one
or more parse structures defined by the linguistic grammar [id.; see also
instant specification, page 9, line 31-32]. The examiner further notes that
the instant specification discloses each parse structure is associated with a
semantic output structure generated on the display [answer, page 13, ¶2].
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007