Appeal 2007-0014
Application 10/202,227
Appellant replies that the Examiner's position that entering a description of
an incident and finding a case related to the inputted description is equivalent to
the claimed input of document features and finding a document that is related to
the inputted document features is unsustainable (Reply Br. 4). It is argued that
claim 1 requires that features, corresponding to non-content based document
structure and layout which defines the "electronic document to be created," are
inputted, whereas in Koski, a description of the problem is entered to enable
resolution of the problem, not the creation of an electronic document (id.).
Moreover, it is argued the Koski desires to find a case with a particular content to
provide a solution to a query, not to find a case (document) having a particular
structure or layout of a document as in the claim (id. at 5).
Both Appellant's invention and Koski deal with "case-based reasoning
(CBR)" using a "case base." Koski relates to CBR, in general. The inputted
attributes in Koski are described by a property-value pair, as in the present
invention. We presume that the "cases" in Koski can be considered to be
"documents," as stated by the Examiner, in the broad sense that a computer data
file can be considered to be a document, which are retrieved based on inputted
features. However, the inputted attributes (features) in Koski do not "defin[e] an
electronic document to be created," but define a case which most closely matches
the input attributes. Koski is not directed to searching out electronic documents
based on document features so as to gather a starting point for generating a new
document. While it may have been obvious to apply the teachings of Koski so that
the cases are electronic documents and the searching is for electronic documents
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013