Appeal 2009-3941
Application 10/334,370
ANALYSIS
1. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Claims 1and 20
Appellants agree with the Examiner’s findings in Brown with respect
to the steps of “receiving a document having text therein” and “generating
document keys associated with said text” such that the text in both steps are
taught to be the same text (Reply Br. 6).
With respect to the claim term “providing a document taxonomy,”
Appellants assert that a “classified document” disclosed in Brown is not the
same as a “document taxonomy,” (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 6-9). The Examiner
relies on ¶¶ 0092-97 of Brown and argues that the method of providing
categories for the word stems and word stem sequences and storing the
procedure in association with each group is the same as the document
taxonomy (Answer 7-8). Appellants point to page 6 of their Specification
for a description of taxonomy. Actually, consistent with Appellants’ own
disclosure, we find that Brown considers “films” as the document taxonomy,
whereas categories form axes such as “Happy-Sad” and word stems get
scores for each group within the axis (FF 8). We also note that Appellants’
claim 1 recites the term “document taxonomy” only in the context of
defining categories and category keys associated therewith. We also observe
that the claims as a whole, do not recite any limitation that attributes any
functionality to the document taxonomy.
Regarding the feature of “comparing the category keys … to make a
determination of a distance between document keys,” Appellants argue that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013