Appeal 2009-3941
Application 10/334,370
Brown merely compares lexical units which are words and phrases and not
category keys (Reply Br. 9-10). The Examiner refers to Brown’s series of
scores and argues that they are results of comparison (Answer 9-10). We
agree with the Examiner’s position that Brown’s determination of scores for
each category results in a determination of a distance or difference between
the training data and the text to be classified (FF 9). Taking the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim, we find that any comparison that
provides a difference of scores would read on the claimed term “distance,”
which indicates the likelihood or frequency of occurrence of the word stem
in the data (FF 8-10).
Appellants further argue that Brown does not disclose the claimed
requirement that the documents are received from a host of a first computing
system while the subset of the categories is returned to the same host (Reply
Br. 11). The Examiner responds by pointing to the portion of Brown
describing the hierarchical structure of the classification tree and argues that
by classifying the document the subset of the categories is returned to the
host (Answer 11). We agree with the Examiner’s argument since the
classification of a text is achieved by returning the scores and the associated
distribution of word stem and word stem sequence scores across the groups
(FF 12-13). As such Brown determines the classification for the text
according to the highest score associated with each word stem.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013