Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
Krantz reference "would supposedly be improved by the addition of spelling
checking" (Br. 76).
We disagree. Krantz discloses that one thread of a multithreaded
program can be reading from the keyboard while another thread is doing
something else (page 64) and "[t]he ability to have multiple threads of
execution is very valuable 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" (page 64). Therefore, Krantz provides
express motivation to provide two concurrent threads of execution.
Nitta discloses that "a lexicon is looked up to convert words in the text
. . . to stems (dictionary look-up). Then, a string of words and idioms in the
text is converted to the corresponding string of parts of speech (part of
speech analysis)." (Col. 3, lines 21-27.) Nitta identifies words of the
sentence and, thus, discloses a lexical analyzer "for parsing the words of
English sentences" as recited in claim 62 and inherently has instructions "to
form input data code" into groups or words as recited in claims 78 and 79.
Nitta further discloses that "the sentence converted to the string of parts of
speech is divided into minimum units with linguistic meaning," "[e]ach of
the phrasal elements is then replaced by a phrasal part of speech," "the string
of phasal parts of speech is converted to a string of syntatic roles," "[f]rom
the string of syntatic roles, a simple sentence pattern . . . having a
syntatically closed subject-predicate relation are searched (English sentence
pattern analysis)" (col. 3, lines 27-43). Thus, Nitta discloses a syntactic
analyzer "for parsing the words of English sentences" as in claim 62 and a
"syntactic analyzer . . to determine whether said identifiers are interrelated
in accordance with predetermined rules of grammar" as recited in claim 64.
114
Page: Previous 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013