Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
capturing error data detected in the translation to a tracking database (FF 2).
That argument has no merit since we find nothing in the record to indicate
that the Examiner made such a finding. FF 2.
Rather, the Examiner found that Ricker’s “process of validating the
document inherently detects errors if the document is not ‛well-formed.’”
FF 3. Appellants did not traverse this finding. FF 4. Furthermore, this
finding is in accord with a person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding
of what Ricker discloses. See FF 10 and 11. To one of ordinary skill in the
art, ensuring the XML document is compliant with a well-formed EDI
message suggests the document has been translated without errors in
translation which, if they were present, would render it non-compliant. An
ability to detect these errors would be a necessary precondition to achieving
a translated document that is “compliant with a well-formed EDI message.”
Accordingly, we find that Ricker shows a computer implemented
process comprising the steps of (a) receiving an inbound document from a
trading partner at a translator; (b) the translator checking compliance of the
document for translation from a source format to a desired target format; and
(c) attempting translation of the document, which translation involves
detecting errors.
The Examiner found that Puckett discloses “capturing data errors to a
database (column 2, lines 60-67)” and “[e]xtracting 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).”
FF 4 and 7.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013