Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
portion of the source code that the compiler is to process, i.e., everything up
to the pause mark, and is not relevant to the editor. These reasons for the
rejections of claims 38, 46, 50, 59, 60, 70, and 72 are reversed.
4. Group 4
As to group 4 (claim 39), the Examiner finds that the limitations of "a
keyboard for entering into the system data code in the form of words of a
language" and "another of said threads comprising instructions executable to
edit said words and sentences in response to keystrokes" are without written
description support because "[t]here is no disclosure directed to editing
'words of a language' or 'words and sentences'" (Final Rejection 26-27
¶ II.3(D)). The Examiner finds that the disclosed editor of the '604 patent is
a "compiler line editor" for entering a program language and not a "word
processor" that can act on any language, such as English, and the claims go
beyond the scope of the disclosure (Final Rejection 27).
Patent Owner argues that the particular phrase, "entering into the
system data code in the form of words of a language," only refers to the
capability of keyboard entry (Br. 89). Patent Owner argues that the editor is
a full screen editor and the Examiner is confusing the operation of the
compiler with the editor (Br. 90-91).
The question of support for the limitations "words" and "sentences" is
discussed in the next section.
We agree with Patent Owner. The limitations at issue are keyboard
entry of data and the ability to edit such data. The keyboard in the '604
patent can enter alphanumeric and control data in any "form," i.e., whatever
meaning is attached to the characters, including in the form of words and
131
Page: Previous 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013