Appeal 2009-3941
Application 10/334,370
Appellants do not present any separate arguments in support of the
patentability of claims 3, 20, and 23 and allow these claims to fall with claim
1 (Br. 9). Therefore, in view of the analysis above and to the extent claimed,
we find that Brown prima facie anticipates claims 1 and 20, as well as claims
3 and 23, dependent thereon.
Claims 4 and 24
Appellants contend that the portions of Brown relied on by the
Examiner require the host of the first computer to be at the “user GUI” in the
second computer system and thus, makes it impossible for the user to be
both the first and the second computer (Reply Br. 12-13). The Examiner
points to Figure 15 of Brown and argues that the main host is the first
computing system which provides the text to the user, which, as the second
computer system, performs the claimed method steps (Answer 11). We
agree with the Examiner and find the Examiner’s position reading the
claimed second computing system on the user in Brown to be reasonable (FF
14).
Claims 5-8 and 25-28
With respect to claims 5 and 25, Appellants further contend that the
claimed “dot product of a vector” cannot be read on Brown's “multiplying”
of the probabilities of the word occurring in the document (Reply Br. 13).
The Examiner’s arguments (Answer 11-12) do not explain how the disclosed
multiplying operation of probabilities may be same as the dot product of a
vector, as no vector has been identified in Brown. We observe that claims 6
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013