Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
the words of English sentences" (Finding 20), a "syntactic analyzer thread to
determine whether said identifiers are interrelated in accordance with
predetermined rules of grammar" (Finding 21), or instructions "to form input
data code" into groups or words (Finding 22). These limitations are broader
than the limitations for lexical and syntactic analyses to perform "spelling
checking" and "grammar checking," as addressed supra, because they do not
specify what specific kinds of lexical and syntactic analyses are performed.
The Examiner finds that Nitta discloses lexical and syntactic analyses
of English sentences and, in particular, spelling checking and grammar
checking (Final Rejection 139-141 ¶¶ VIII.2 & VIII.3). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of OS/2
and Nitta to provide lexical and syntactic analyses because OS/2 teaches a
system that allows threads to perform two disparate functions and "it would
be beneficial to use one thread of OS/2 [to] do the editing on the input file
and another to do the speller checking functions of Nitta (dictionary
look-up) because it allows a process to continue doing useful work even
though it may also be waiting for another part of the system to complete a
request (See OS/2, page 64, first par, after the partial par.)" (Final
Rejection 139 ¶ VIII.2; Answer 155).
Patent Owner argues that there is no suggestion in the art to make the
combination (Br. 76). It is argued that the Examiner's statement that it
would be beneficial to use one processor to perform two disparate functions
for the advantage of allowing an operator to correct improper spelling while
the operator is still entering the code is based on hindsight (Br. 76). It is
argued that the Examiner does not identify what code entry operation in the
113
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013