Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
document which are detected in the translation process,” Appeal Br. 6.
Emphasis original. In other words, Appellants dispute the relevance of
Puckett on the grounds that, although Puckett captures errors to a database,
the captured errors are not, as in claim 1, translation errors.
7. The Examiner also found that
Puckett discloses:
…
• Extracting data from the received document and using it to provide a
document identifier, and saving the document identifier to a database
as an index for the error data, the document identifier correlated to the
received document (column 3, lines 4-12: Here, the header is a
document identifier grouping the error events).
Answer 4.
8. Appellants do not traverse the Examiner’s finding that Puckett teaches
providing a document identifier and saving the document identifier as an
index for the error data correlated to the received document. Appeal Br. 6-7.
9. Instead, Appellants dispute the relevance of Puckett, arguing that
“Puckett has nothing to do with an inbound trading partner document,”
Appeal Br. 7, and thus “necessarily does not teach or suggest anything
related to (2) an internal document identifier being saved to the tracking
database that serves as an index for the translation error data” (Appeal Br.
7). In other words, Appellants dispute the relevance of Puckett on the
grounds that, although Puckett provides a document identifier and saves the
document identifier as an index for the error data correlated to the received
document, it is not directed to inbound trading partner documents.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013