Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
have been amended to recite operating on alphanumeric data does not
preclude a subtask from also operating on control characters. Since the
editor and compiler work on alphanumeric data, there is written description
support for the added alphanumeric limitations. This reason for the rejection
of claims 1, 4, 6, 18, 24, 26, 41, and 82 is reversed.
9. Groups 23-25, 33, and 34
As to group 23 (claims 63 and 65), the Examiner finds that the
limitations of "grouping the characters into sequences each constituting an
identifier" (claim 63) and a "lexical analyzer to form the characters into
sequences each constituting a word" (claim 65) lack written description
because the '604 patent does not teach grouping of characters into identifiers
or words (Final Rejection 40 ¶ II.3(M)).
As to group 24 (claim 64), the Examiner finds that the limitation of a
"syntactic analyzer thread to determine whether said identifiers are
interrelated in accordance with predetermined rules of grammar" lacks
written description because the '604 patent does not teach determining
whether identifiers are interrelated (Final Rejection 40 ¶ II.3(M)).
As to group 25 (claims 66 and 76), the Examiner finds that the
limitations of "determining whether the last character of a word has been
input" (claim 66) and "determine whether the last character of a word has
been inserted into the buffer" (claim 76) lack written description because the
'604 patent only discloses determining if the last character of a symbol has
been input, and a "word" is different from a "symbol." (Final Rejection 41
¶ II.3(N)).
146
Page: Previous 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013