Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
only the disclosure) were limited to formal programming languages, then
reciting natural languages would be a broadening of the scope. However,
none of the issued '604 patent claim recite the nature of the data, such as a
language, or the nature of the operations performed on the data, such as
lexical and syntactic analysis. Thus, limiting the type of data to "words" and
"sentences," and the type of operations to spelling checking and grammar
checking is a narrowing of the claim scope. Whether there is written
description support for such amendments is a separate issue. The rejections
of claims 39-43, 47-49, 51-56, 61, and 65-67 in groups 2-6 are reversed.
We have likewise considered groups 7-16, but do not find any
broadening of the scope of the claims. Accordingly, the rejections of
claims 68-73, 75, 78, 79, 81, and 83 in groups 7-16 are reversed.
CONCLUSION
The '604 patent is not entitled to the benefit of a priority date of the
1990 application or earlier under 35 U.S.C. § 120.
The rejection of claims 1-38, 44-47, 50, 57-60, 68-72, 75, and 80-83
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Krantz is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 41, 42, 51, 78, and 79 under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krantz and Nitta is affirmed. The rejection of claims 39,
40, 43, 48, 49, 52-56, 61-67, 73, 74, 76, and 77 under § 103(a) over Krantz
and Nitta is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-38, 44-47, 50, 57-60, 68-72, 75, and 80-83
under § 102 as being anticipated by De Jong is reversed.
154
Page: Previous 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013