Appeal 2006-2932
Application 10/042,192
on appeal. We are therefore as well unpersusaded of any impermissible
hindsight as set forth at pages 3 and 4 of the Reply Brief. A particular note
here as well is that the subject matter of representative independent claim 1
on appeal does not explicitly recite processing a character set by individually
comparing characters in the character set with characters in a plurality of
candidate character sets to identify matches as urged at the middle of page 3
of the Reply Brief. Only a portion of the character strings are processed in
the comparing operation in the evaluating clause in a manner similar to the
general teachings of Peng and Watanabe.
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer we also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5, 15, 25 and 35 further relying
upon Schulze. Although the argument at page 8 of the Brief is characterized
as urging no proper motivation exists for further adding Schulze, Appellants
at the bottom of page 8 do not really deny the combinability of the teachings
of Schulze to those of Peng and Watanabe where it is said “even if this was
true.” Contrary to the position urged there the Examiner in our view has
amply characterized his initial statement of the motivation to add Schulze to
the teachings and showings in Peng and Watanabe at pages 10 and 11 of the
Answer, which has been further embellished at page 13. To be able to
automatically determine the predominant language of a simple text using
probability data, such as those n-grams of the type broadly set forth in
representative dependent claim 5 on appeal, would have been an obvious
enhancement to the combined systems of Peng and Watanabe. Whereas the
artisan may well consider the combination of teachings of Peng and
Watanabe as being word or symbol based, Schulze has the capability of
increasing the possibility of quickly and more accurately determining a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013