Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
sentences, although it disclosed as being intended for entering data in the
form of formal programming language. The editor can edit the entered data.
Thus, this reason for the rejection of claim 39 is reversed.
5. Groups 6-11, 13-18, 26, and 31
As to group 6 (claims 39, 41-43, 47, 48, and 51-53), group 7 (claims
39, 40-42, 48, 49, 52, and 53), group 8 (claims 40, 49, 54, 55, and 61),
group 10 (claims 42, 48, 53, and 61), group 11 (claims 42, 48, 53, and 61),
group 13 (claim 51), group 14 (claims 43, 54, and 62), group 15 (claim 51),
group 16 (claims 39, 40, 43, 49, 54, and 56), group 17 (claim 61), and
group 18 (claims 39, 40-43, and 47-49), the Examiner finds no written
description support for limitations relating to "language code," "natural
language," "English words," "words," "sentences," "lexical analyzer for
checking the spelling of words," "syntactic analyzer for checking the
grammar of words and sentence," and "syntactic analyses for parsing said
sentences" (Final Rejection 28-32 ¶ II.3(F)).
As to group 9 (claims 40, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 56), the
Examiner finds that the limitations "instructions executable to edit said
words and sentences concurrently as they are being parsed" (claim 40, 49,
and 55), "instructions executable to edit said words concurrently as they are
being parsed" (claim 43), "editing the entered words" (claim 51), and
"instructions executable . . . to edit said words concurrently as they are being
parsed" (claim 56) are without written description support because there is
no description of editing of words and sentences of a natural language (Final
Rejection 33 ¶ II.3(G). Although the rejection includes claims 42, 48, and
49, we do not find the editing limitations in those claims.
132
Page: Previous 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013