Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
As to group 26 (claim 67), the Examiner finds that the limitation
"syntactic analysis instructions to determine whether the correctly spelled
words form grammatically correct sentences" is without written description
support because the '604 patent is directed only to syntactic analysis of
program source code (Final Rejection 41 ¶ II.3(O)).
As to group 31 (claim 73), the Examiner finds that the limitation of a
"lexical analyzer to form said data into sequences each constituting a word"
lack written description support because the '604 patent does not disclose the
lexical analyzer analyzing "words" (Final Rejection 45-6 ¶ II.3(T)).
a. Overlooked claims
Claims 63-66, 73, 74, 76, 77, and 79 contain similar limitations to
checking spelling and/or grammar and, therefore, were apparently
inadvertently overlooked in making the rejections. Inclusion of these claims
does not raise a new ground of rejection because Patent Owner was
informed of the problem with respect to other claims (nor do we think that
Patent Owner wants this decision to be labeled as containing a new ground
of rejection because that would only further delay judicial review).
b. Analysis
These rejections relate to the subject matter that Patent Owner tried to
incorporate from the parent 1990 application by amendment, as discussed in
the Preliminary Issue, supra. These rejections involve claims reciting that
the code processed by the program may be words and sentences of a natural
language such as English, and that lexical analysis may be used to determine
correct spelling and syntactic analysis may be used to determine correct
133
Page: Previous 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013