Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
also analyzer 2104 that takes the output from tokenizer 2102 (i.e., a
sequence of tokens), and analyzes each word by consulting dictionary 2158
and a set of analysis rules 2156 to produce the output 2204 shown in the
right side of fig. 22 [Horiguchi, col. 20, lines 48-67, cont’d col. 21, lines
1-33]. Therefore, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports
the examiner’s position. Accordingly we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi in view of Robinson for
essentially the same reasons argued by the examiner in the answer.
As per claims 12 and 13:
Appellant points out that claim 12 includes setting a surface semantic
value by setting a confidence level for the entity [brief, page 7]. Appellant
comments that the Office Action appears to suggest that Horiguchi mentions
probability/likelihood and therefore teaches this element [id.]. Appellant
argues that Horiguchi teaches or suggests nothing about setting a surface
semantic value by setting a confidence level for an entity [id.]. Appellant
further argues that Robinson does not overcome the deficiencies of the
Horiguchi reference [id.]. Therefore, appellant concludes that claim 12 is
non-obvious over the combination of Horiguchi and Robinson [id.].
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007