Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

12011843 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/011,843 01/29/2008 Stephen J. Brown 9748.00108 1493
82328 7590 02/23/2017
Christopher P. Maiorana, P.C.
24840 Harper Ave.
Suite 100
St Clair Shores, MI 48080
EXAMINER
YU, XIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN J. BROWN
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20—24. App. Br. 10.1
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been canceled. Id. at 35—36,
38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed November 12, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 11,
2015, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 18, 2015, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 18, 2016.
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention tracks how well a user follows self-
improvement coaching modules. See Spec. 5:15—6:10. For example, a
coaching module can instruct a user to limit snacks to one per day or
participate in physical exercise. Id. at 6:14—17. The user can score
themselves based on how well the user follows the module’s content.
Id. at 6:3—10.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for tracking user property scores against content
modules, comprising:
(a) having a computer implemented social network of a
plurality of users, wherein each of said plurality of users of said
social network is (i) associated with one or more user properties
selected from the group consisting of a behavioral action of said
user and an emotional state of said user and (ii) trying to improve
at least one personal aspect;
(b) having a plurality of content modules comprising at
least one module with coaching content for personal behavioral
modification sought by one or more of said plurality of users,
wherein (i) said plurality of content modules are accessible by
said plurality of users of said social network and (ii) each of said
plurality of content modules is related to one or more of said user
properties;
(c) allowing said plurality of users of said social network
to access a bookmark function, wherein said bookmark function
enables each of said users of said social network (i) to generate a
direct link to at least one of said plurality of content modules
containing the coaching content for the personal behavioral
modification sought by each of said users and (ii) to store the
direct link as part of a respective collection of direct links which
are stored on a computer of each of said users and managed by
each of said users;
2
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
(d) allowing each of said users having a bookmarked
content module to access a scoring function for said bookmarked
content module, wherein
said scoring function allows each of said users having said
bookmarked content module to score themselves multiple times
with regard to said one or more user properties related to said
bookmarked content module independently of said social
network,
said multiple scores of each of said users indicate an
assessment by said user of how well said user views themselves
as having followed coaching content in said bookmarked content
module,
said multiple scores of each of said users are made over a
period of time, and
each of said plurality of content modules comprises an
embedded respective scoring instruction describing a binary or
numerical range scoring metric to be used by each of said users
to score themselves with regard to at least one of said user
properties against the content module in which said respective
scoring instruction is embedded;
(e) tracking said multiple scores provided by each of said
users over at least a subset of said period of time; and
(f) automatically forming an online community
comprising a plurality of members who have all bookmarked
said bookmarked content module and have similar goals with
respect to the coaching content of said bookmarked module,
wherein each of said plurality of members can view a list of the
other members of the online community and the scores of the
other members of the online community.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Thompson US 2004/0210661 A1 Oct. 21,2004
Meitar US 2009/0035733 A1 Feb. 5, 2009
3
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
Claims 1,3,6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson and Meitar.
Final Act. 4—13.
CLAIMS 1, 11, AND 21
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Thompson discloses every recited element of
claim 1 except for (1) generating and storing direct links to various content
modules, and (2) allowing each of the users having a bookmarked-content
module to access the recited scoring function for scoring themselves with
scores that indicate a user’s assessment of how well the user views
themselves as having followed the recited content (i.e., element (d)).
Final Act. 4—10. In concluding that the claim would have been obvious, the
Examiner cites Meitar. Id. at 6—8. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Meitar’s system allows the user to self-assess progress. Id. at 8 (citing
Meitar 1254).
Appellant argues that the Thompson-Meitar combination lacks
multiple scores of each of the users that indicate an assessment by the user
of how well the user views themselves as having followed the recited
content. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that
simply entering “yes,” “no,” or a number does not indicate a user’s
assessment of how well the user views themselves as having followed the
coaching content. App. Br. 13—14. According to Appellant, entering “yes,”
“no,” or a number merely results in data values. Id. at 14. Similarly, in
Appellant’s view, entering the number of snacks consumed, as relied upon
4
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
by the Examiner, is a factual response—not a user’s own subjective
assessment of how well the user followed the coaching to limit snacks to one
per day, the latter of which is claimed. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant contends that Thompson’s user does not make their own
self-assessment scores based on the recited scoring instructions.
App. Br. 14. According to Appellant, Thompson’s systematic-attraction­
matching (SAM) agent, or some expert, performs the assessment. Id.
Appellant further argues that Meitar does not allow users to score
themselves. Id. at 14—16; Reply Br. 7—8. According to Appellant, Meitar’s
teaching-learning system generates the student’s knowledge map, and the
system scores the students. App. Br. 15. In Appellant’s view, Meitar’s
students use the updated, generated knowledge map for self-assessment.
Id. at 15—16. But Appellant contends that Meitar provides objective,
computer-generated scores for self-assessment—not subjective, user­
generated scores. Reply Br. 8.
Appellant further argues that modifying Thompson and Meitar to
track scores indicating a user’s assessment, as recited, would change the
prior art inventions’ principle of operation. App. Br. 16.
Issues
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Thompson and Meitar collectively would have taught or suggested the
recited bookmarked-content module including scores that indicate a user’s
assessment of how well the user views themselves as having followed the
recited content?
5
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
II. Has the Examiner supported the obviousness conclusion with
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning?
ANALYSIS
I
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “multiple scores of each of said
users indicate an assessment by said user of how well said user views
themselves as having followed” the recited coaching content.
The Specification provides several examples of how users’ scores
indicate the recited assessment. See, e.g., Spec. 5:22—6:21, cited in
App. Br. 3 (summarizing the claimed subject matter). Generally, scores are
based on “user properties” including “behavioral actions,” such as the
number of servings of fruit and vegetables consumed, among others. See
Spec. 6:12—21. In one example, a content module instructs the user to limit
snacks to one per day. Id. at 6:13—14. The user scores themselves based on
whether the user exceeded the snack limit. Id. at 6:14—15. Another content
module instructs the user to exercise. Id. at 6:15—17. The module’s score
can be a number from zero to nine based on the amount that the user
exercised. Id. But apart from these non-limiting embodiments {see, e.g.,
id. at 5:22—6:21), the Specification does not confine our interpretation to a
particular example of how scores indicate the recited assessment.
Accordingly, we construe the limitation at issue according to its plain
meaning, consistent with the above-discussed examples and the limitation’s
context within the claim.
6
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
One plain meaning of “indicate” is to be a sign or index of. Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary 585 (3d ed. 1976). So, under the plain meaning of the
limitation “multiple scores of each of said users indicate an assessment by
said user” (emphasis added), the recited scores need only be a sign or index
of the users’ assessments. For example, a number from zero to nine is a sign
or index of a user’s assessment of how well the user views themselves as
having followed the instruction to exercise. See Spec. 6:14—17.
Given this breadth, the Examiner did not err in finding that the user’s
yes-or-no response (Final Act. 7) and the number of strangers smiled at
(Ans. 5) indicate how well the user views themselves as having followed the
instruction to smile at strangers. Even assuming these responses (or
“scores”) are facts, Appellant has not explained persuasively why the user’s
factual responses (Reply Br. 5) or “data values” generally (App. Br. 14)
cannot indicate how well the user views themselves as following the
instruction. Like servings of fruit consumed (Spec. 6:12—21) or numbers
based on exercise {id. at 6:15—17) in the Specification’s examples, the
number of strangers smiled at (Ans. 5) or yes-or-no responses (Final Act. 7;
Ans. 5) indicate the user’s assessment when compared to the original
coaching instruction. That is, the degree that the user’s reported action
meets the instruction is a sign of how well the user views themselves as
following that instruction.
Turning to the rest of element (d), the Examiner relies on the
combination of Thompson and Meitar for these features. Final Act. 6—7.
But Appellant does not argue the particulars of this combination. See App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 7—8. Instead, Appellant argues that the references
7
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
individually do not teach users making their own self-assessment scores
based on the recited scoring instructions. Id.
For example, Appellant contends that Thompson’s SAM agent or
some expert performs the assessment. Id. The Examiner, however,
proposes augmenting Thompson’s system with additional self-assessment
data. Final Act. 6—8. Furthermore, Appellant contends that Meitar provides
objective, computer-generated scores for self-assessment. App. Br. 15—16;
Reply Br. 8. But here, the Examiner proposes using Thompson’s user
feedback questions to capture and incorporate Meitar’s user’s self-
assessment based on those generated scores. See Final Act. 7—8 (discussing
providing feedback based on a user’s self-assessment).
For at least the reason that Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 15—16;
Reply Br. 8) amount to attacking the references individually, these
arguments are not persuasive. By attacking the references individually,
Appellant’s argument fails to address the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to allow users to provide feedback to Thompson’s
system. See Final Act. 7—8 (discussing both Thompson and Meitar, and
referring back to the previously stated reasons for combining).
II
Furthermore, the Examiner has supported this obviousness conclusion
with articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. Specifically,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the
cited teachings to provide additional information for Thompson’s automated
system to use in customizing and enhancing the user’s learning experience.
Ans. 6—7. In rebutting this conclusion, Appellant offers no persuasive
8
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
evidence that modifying Thompson and Meitar to track scores indicating a
user’s assessment, as recited, would change the prior art inventions’
principle of operation. App. Br. 16.
To the contrary, the Examiner proposes adding information to the
system to support Thompson’s operation. See Final Act. 7—8. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Thompson’s system determines whether the
experience moves too fast for the user. Final Act. 7—8 (citing Thompson
| 82). The Examiner further finds that Meitar’s system allows the user to
self-assess progress. Final Act. 8 (citing Meitar 1254). For example,
Meitar updates the knowledge map for this purpose. Meitar 1254.
Capturing and incorporating a user’s self-assessment in Thompson’s
system would only provide additional data to be taken into account when
modifying the learning experience to best suit the user. See Final Act. 6—8
(discussing changing, enhancing, and redefining the learning experience
based on questions and feedback); see also Ans. 7. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s proposed enhancement predictably uses the prior art elements
according to their established functions, and involves a creative step well
within the skill level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 421 (2007).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Although Appellant nominally argues claims 11 and 21 separately,
Appellant relies on arguments made against the rejection of claim 1. See
App. Br. 21—22, 26—28 (incorporating by reference the arguments in support
of claim 1). Accordingly, we group those claims with claim 1. For the
9
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
reasons previously discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11 and 21.
CLAIMS 3, 10, 13, AND 20
Regarding claims 3, 10, 13, and 20, Appellant contends that these
claims have been grouped and argued separately, and requests explicit
analysis and reasoning concerning their patentability. App. Br. 17, 23.
Apart from noting that these claims depend directly from claims 1 or 11,
Appellant’s argument lacks any discussion of the specific features recited in
claims 3, 10, 13, and 20. Id.
“Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de
novo review of all aspects of a rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Rather, we review the appealed rejections
for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the
arguments and evidence produced thereon. Id.
Although Appellant groups claims 3, 10, 13, and 20 separately,
Appellant relies on the arguments made against the rejection of claims 1 and
11. See App. Br. 17, 23. So, the issues identified by Appellant regarding
claims 3, 10, 13, and 20 are the same as those regarding claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, our reasons for sustaining the rejection of claims 1 and 11
apply to Appellant’s arguments here, and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3, 10, 13, and 20.
10
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
CLAIMS 6 AND 16
Claim 6 recites, in part, “said bookmarked content module is posted
on said user profile of each of said plurality of users who bookmarked said
bookmarked content module.”
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that, under the proposed
combination, each of Thompson’s users bookmark or track their progress.
Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, posting modules on the user profile of
users who bookmarked the module allows those users to find other similar
users—e.g., users interested in the same modules and, thus, same goals and
subjects. /J.; Final Act. 10—11.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not explained why the
references teach the recited posting of bookmarked content. App. Br. 18
(citing Final Act. 10—11).
On this record, Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 18) are unpersuasive.
Specifically, Thompson uses match-engine module 150 to match users for a
potential “on-line date.” See Thompson || 63—64, cited in Final Act. 11.
This match is based on compatibility between the users. Thompson H 63—
64. For example, Thompson provides users with the ability to interact with
other users pursuing similar goals. See, e.g., id. 1 59. Because Thompson
matches users in this way, the Examiner’s finding that those goals can be
determined by a common interest in a module (see Ans. 8) is reasonable.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
allow the each user to bookmark modules in their profile for matching users
(see Final Act. 10—11; Ans. 8) is favored by the weight of the evidence.
11
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
In arguing against the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant further
incorporates by reference the arguments in support of claim 1. App. Br. 17—
18. These arguments, however, are unpersuasive for the reasons previously
discussed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Although Appellant nominally argue claim 16 separately under a
different heading, Appellant relies on arguments made against the rejection
of claim 6. See App. Br. 23—24 (incorporating by reference the arguments in
support of claim 6). Accordingly, we group claim 16 with claim 6. For the
reasons previously discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16.
CLAIMS 7 AND 17
Claim 7 recites, in part, “said user profile comprises a ‘tip of the day’
comprising a posting of one of said plurality of content modules.”
The Examiner finds that Thompson’s modules contain constant
reminders, or “daily tasks,” for the user to complete within a program.
Final Act. 11 (citing Thompson | 80). According to the Examiner,
Thompson’s reminders correspond to the recited “tip of the day,” which is
posted to the content-activity module. Ans. 9 (citing Thompson || 80-81).
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not explained why the
references teach the recited user profile with a “tip of the day” having a
posted content module. App. Br. 19-20.
Appellant’s arguments (id.) are persuasive.
12
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
To be sure, Thompson reminds the user to accomplish a task.
Thompson | 80. But the Examiner has not identified a relationship between
this reminder and the user’s profile. See Final Act. 11; Ans. 9. Neither of
the Examiner-cited paragraphs (Thompson || 80-81) is self-explanatory on
this point. At most, Thompson explains that the reminders are provided by
Thompson’s agent. Id. But the Examiner-cited portion of Thompson does
not explain how. See id. On this record, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not shown that merely delivering reminders requires a user
profile with a “tip of the day” having a posted content module, as recited.
See App. Br. 20.
Nor has the Examiner explained why a skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine the teachings in Thompson to arrive at the
limitation at issue. See Final Act. 11. Rather, the Examiner merely cites to
Thompson with no further rationale. See id. So to the extent that the
Examiner is combining features from several embodiments, the rejection
lacks a rationale for doing so. See id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations and was rejected by the Examiner
under the same rationale. Final Act. 12; Ans. 10. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the same reasons.
CLAIM 22
Claim 22 recites, in part, “each of said members of said online
community can select between sending a message and sending a poke to
another member of said online community.”
13
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that (1) a poke is a message
and (2) Thompson’s users can send messages. Final Act. 12 (citing
Thompson || 64, 182).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the Thompson-
Meitar combination teaches that members can select between sending a
message and sending a poke. App. Br. 28—30. According to Appellant, the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term “poke” eliminates any distinction
between a message and a poke. Id. at 29.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Thompson provides multiple
types of messages, such as emails and instant messages. Ans. 11 (citing
Thompson || 64, 182). According to the Examiner, Thompson’s instant
messages correspond to the recited poke, and Thompson’s email message
corresponds to the recited message. Ans. 11.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant incorporates the arguments made in the
Principal Brief. Reply Br. 10.
On this record, the weight of the evidence favors the Examiner’s
position. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Thompson’s users
are provided with a suite of communication options, including emails and
instant messages. Ans. 11 (citing Thompson || 64, 182). Appellant’s
argument regarding the Examiner’s interpretation (App. Br. 29) is
unpersuasive because the Examiner finds that the recited poke and message
correspond to distinct options in Thompson (Ans. 11).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
14
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
CLAIMS 23 AND 24
Claim 23 recites, in part, “providing a display function that enables
each of said plurality of users to view the multiple scores each of said users
has made for themselves over said period of time or a subset of said period
of time.”
In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner finds that Thompson provides the
recited display function because Thompson’s users share information with
other users and are able to view changes to a user’s profile over time.
Final Act. 13 (citing Thompson || 34—37, 52, 64). According to the
Examiner, Thompson’s user provides changes to the profiles, which update
over time. Ans. 12 (citing Thompson || 34—37, 52, 64).
Appellant argues that the Thompson-Meitar combination does not
provide the recited display function. App. Br. 30-31. In Appellant’s view,
Thompson’s SAM agent shares synthesized results, not user-provided
scores. Id. at 30 (citing Thompson 1124). According to Appellant,
Thompson’s paragraph 124 is relevant because this paragraph discusses
which items can be shared. Reply Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 30-31; Reply Br. 10), however, is
unpersuasive. Specifically, Thompson explains that the system uses a
feedback system’s insights to optimize algorithms. Thompson | 124.
Thompson further discloses that the optimized user-independent algorithms
can be applied to new users. Id. But Appellant has not explained, nor is it
apparent, the relevance of these teachings to the sharable items identified by
the Examiner (Final Act. 13).
15
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
To the contrary, Thompson expressly discloses that the user
personalizes their display by selecting “swap items.” Thompson | 52.
These items include images, video, and audio, among many other things to
be displayed {id.), not just synthesized results (App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 10
(citing Thompson 1124)). On this record, Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the recited display function would have
been obvious.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Although Appellant nominally argues claim 24 separately, Appellant
relies on arguments made against the rejection of claim 23. See
App. Br. 30-31; Reply Br. 10. So for the reasons previously discussed
regarding claim 23, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
CONCLUSIONS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,6, 10, 11, 13, 16,
and 20—24 under § 103.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 17 under
§103.
DECISION
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,6, 7, 10, 11,
13, 16, 17, and 20-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
16
Appeal 2016-002977
Application 12/011,843
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Notice of References Cited 12/011,843
Appeal No.
2016-002977
Examiner Art Unit
2455 Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
Date
MM-YYYY Name Classification
A us-
B us-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
1 US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
Date
MM-YYYY Country Name Classification
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
U Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. 585 (3d ed. 1976).
V
w
X
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.

Copyright © 1976 by G. & C. Merriam Co.
Philippines Copyright 1976 by G. & C. Merriam Co.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Webster's new collegiate dictionary.
Editions for 1898-1948 have title: Webster’s collegiate dictionary':
1949-61 and 1973-76 editions have title: Webster’s new collegiate dictionary;
1963-72 editions have title: Webster's seventh new collegiate dictionary.
1. English language—Dictionaries.
PE1628.W4M4 1976 423 75-33335
ISBN 0-87779-338-7 (plain)
0-87779-339-5 (thumb-indexed)
0-87779-340-9 (Buksyn)
\
Previous edition copyright © 1973, 1974, 1975 by G. & C. -Merriam Co.
Previous edition Philippines Copyright 1973, 1974, .1975 by G. & C. Merriam Co
COLLEGIATE is a registered trademark.
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may
be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and re­
trieval systems—without written permission of the publisher.
Made in the United States of America
584
‘petvdan-seX n 1 : independence 1 2
»oiity or movement 3 : an independent
>en-d3«t\ adj 1 ; not dependent: as a
mtroi by others ; self-governing (2)
ger controlling unit b (l): nor requiring
dse : not contingent d © (1) : having
i — set of vectors> U) t having the
robabiiity (as oi events or samples) or the
function (as of random variables) equals
bilities or probability density functions of
2p : of or relating to the independents 3
ause> b s neither deducible from nor
sr statement postulates^ syn see free
pen-derridy adv
0 : a sectarian of an English religious
or.al autonomv originating in the late loth
:ongregationafists. Baptists, and Friends, ::
najor political groupings of the period of x
is independent; esp often cap : one thatjs:x
vdy committed to a political parly
>nt n : formation of combinations of:::
with one of each diploid pair of homolorN
mg at random into each gamete :r.depen-x
; also ‘ the similar process when genes ::
nologous chromosomes; are considered
s i a mathematical variable whose value ;:
r more other variables m a function
adj': COMPREHENSIVE, THOROUGH 2 i surpassing descnption <.- joy>r~ :::
1 — In-de-scsife-sbEy Vblex adv
c-ts-boK adj [prob. fir. LL mdestruciibihx.:>
pp. of destmere to tear down — more arix
dble — *'» ds-srtftic tutm-nty X-strok to-
iruc-ti-ble-ness Vstrsk-ts-bol-nos\ n ...
>. adv
ii-siorm-{o-ta3-bat\ ad: 1 : mcapableof:::
or settled 2: incapable of being definitely: :::
sn-de-ter-mio-abl'S « — »« ot ter
•m-(o-)nb^se\ n : the quality or state of
\& n \ UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
i-harm-iO’^notN adi [ME tndeternonat, u.
;>j_ _u detertntnatusi Dp.-of determinant
lefmitely or precisely detei •• » «\
n in advance e : not leading to * deficit:
y an infinite number of solutions ■
sag one of the seven undefined m .
adv —- ut<;* ;c. ■v" ‘Ht*
miTta-item Vjtor-ms-'na- 5. ••
*mo-»mz-s>m\ n s a : a theory thaU thevx
,crate choice and actions are not detprtmow:.v.
antecedent causes b ’ a theory tbab-hb*^:::-
i a cause 2 : the quality or state of b«ft§::::::
UNPREDICTABILITY — H. vJ
in de-tor sTssrs-is ric \ .tor i
in dex es or mdusos X-ow5sez \ [L tadtcyy
ndicate] 1 : a list (as of bsbhograpfes&Y::
i to a body of literature) arranged nsu >fi
me specified datum (as aui hyi\ su’^jcch ot
of items (as topics or names) frtaieu
for each item the page number whetf tm
index c : a bibhograph .. ”'s ,
that is usu. published penodicajiy : -*;:S;:;:;
;er on a scale or the gnomon of a supdlw;v;
a value or quantity b ' something tR- R
node of expression; that i "
tsion ' X i
to indicate a matheriabcal operauon tv »
te use or position sn an anpng «■: a eh- >■ J i
paragraph — called aleo fat P ^ .s
d from a senes of ob
j (as of a condition? i " ' ^
jmber b : the ratio of one dimcn«^ ^
a] stmctn-> t- another duuenstvh
wide with otp n > • American dogbane {Apocynurn con-
nabmurn) with milkv mice, tough fibrous bark? and an emetic and.
cathartic root 2 : HEMP 1
siccrtori •* ; ron" t pea l
Indsars m»ui n : cornmeal
{ndiftn pa'Otrn ‘.oh « 1 : any of a genus {Casimeja} of herbaceous
plants of the ligwort family that have brightly colored bracts —
called, also pamied cup 2; orange hawk weed
Indian pip© n \ a waxy white leafless
sapronhytic herb < Manotropa un(flora oi'
tne family Monotropaceae, the Indian*
pipe family; of Asia and the U.3.
pudduNq >' . a pudding made Y %
Indian pipe
ehtefiy oi corumea.!. milR, and molasses
IndJS'n r t 5 ’ » >etkfwish redearth
containing hematite and used as a pigment
b i; any of various light red to purplish
;; brown pigments made bv caiciulng iron
::: salts 2 ; a strong or moderate reddish
a brown
.» : he x 'R-i;
ind''*" h t ' period of warm
::: or mild weaiher m late autumn or early
:: winter 2 ” a haopv or nourishing period
a occurring toward the end of something
:: Ajire m the Indian summer of Caansr
: Russia —John L>avenr>crr>
:ndtjo xobricso ' l m American wild lobelia (Lobelia inflate)
x: :With small blue flowers 2 ; a wild tobacco (Nfcodana mstica) 3
:::d a common cat s-loot {Antennaria piantapimj'olia) of eastern No.
:::Anierica
hi qs sn-vveos il-> \N.-v-.jo on-i.res-oi, -6ras-\ vi [back-formation fr.
yy .lndian wresthn?} : to engage in Indian wrestling
Inman 'ao n 3 * Ivrestiing in which two wrestlers lie side
::xby side on their backs in reversed, position locking their near arms
xAar-d raising and locking the corresponding legs and attempt to force
xxeaeh other's teg down and turn the other wrestler on his face 2
::::i: wrc5tJing in which rwo wrestlers stand face to face gripping usu.
x xtheir nghi hands and setting the outsides of the corresponding feet
^together and atvemot to force each other off balance 3 : arm
INNWRESTLING
:::ihdis paper n. 1 ‘ a tnm absorbent paper used esp. for proving
inked mtagho surfaces (as steel engravings) 2 : a thin tough
:-::: opaque pruning paper
nidi® rubber n ofitn >.ap I; 'rubber 2a
indicative
;v:ip?dlC \{m-dik\ ari: t : ot or relating to the subcontinent of India
: Indian 2: ot, relating to, or constituting the Indian branch of
the Snoc-Europem l^ng-oages — see indo-european la?->3Uaces
^xlable IncSsc n
m.dj oan N^n-do-Jcan x n [L indscum indigo — more at indigo] ’3
xglucoside C|4 Hr NO*occurring esp. in the indigo plant and
:vx:b®inga source of natural mdigo 2 : an indigo-forming substance
xv'T-i'^'NC^S found as a salt in urine and other as'jirnal .fiuids
\Vn-di-kont \ n : something that serves to indicate
tfrdi-c&i-s \Jm-do-ikat\ vt [L indicatus, pp. of
indkpre, fr >n- t d'eate to proclaim, dedicate --- more djction]
> to po-nt •-‘ut oi point to b : to be a sign, symptom, or index
<.the high lever a serious condition> c : to demonstrate or
xvxkhSSest tiie necest.!tv or advisability of Kindicated the need for a
r>ew schools* 2 ' to late or express briefly ; suggest
**K!M58 ’goo \.m da R a-sh;>n\ n 1 t the action of indicating 2 a
' ^^fhmg that r-tn es t. ■ indicate b' something that is indicated
or r,eu,?“sS'!irv "3 ; the degree indicated on a graduated
Cl11®®'1 • reading \-shuoi, -S5hou-si\ adj
/vk!^ '?‘X5V!:> X,5r' tuk-ubsvX adj 'i : of, relating to, or cousiifutmg
or 5et ' ^fb forms that represents the denoted act or
* objective fact 2
^ 1Ttdicare — in-dsC'S-tivs-Sy adv
nmcatjv© a 1 i tue snoicstive mood of a language 2 t a form
>-°0j
)S‘n n \ ; one that indicates: as s : an
pointer b (f); a pressure gauge (2)
«ms«ramenr for automatically making a diagram that indicates
number # indigo
the pressure in arid volume of the working fluid of an engine
throughout the cycle c ■; a dial that registers something (as the
movement of an elevaror) 2 a “ a substance (as-litmus) used to
show visually (as by change of color) the condition of a solution
with resoect to the presence of a particular material (as a free acid
or alkali) hi tracer 4b 3; an organism or ecological communi­
ty so strictly associated with particular environmental conditions
that its presence is indicative of the existence of these conditions —
5$vd?G-s-So-yy Yln-’dik-o-Ydr-e, -,tor-\ adj
hndicss pi of INDEX
ItS'dhcis \srs-',d
In-died:km Xin-Mik-shsnX n [ME indiccioun, fr. LL indiciion
indictio, fr. L, proclamation, fr. indicias, pp. of indicere to
proclaim, fr. in- 4- dicere to say — more at DicrtON]: a 15-year
cycle used as a chronological unit in several ancient and medieval
systems
sfhdfct-matrS: \in-’dit-m^nt\ n 1 s; the action or the legal process
of indicting b t the state of being indicted 2 ; a forma! written
statement Framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury
(as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense
Xin-'dif-ornvOs, Ahf'{c«)ran(t)s\ n ,1: the quality,
state, or fact of being indifferent 2 ® archaic : lack of dilterence
or distinction between two or more things b : absence of compul­
sion to or toward one thing or another
sD-dsf-fsr-Gn-cy Vorn-se, -(o-)ron-se\ n, archaic : indifference
Xin-'dif-^mt, -"dif-(s-)rsnt\ adj [ME, fr. MF or L;
MF, regarded as neither good nor bad, fr. L indifferentindijjerens,
fr. in- 4- differentdifferent, prp. of differre to be different—more
at different] T ; marked by impartiality : unbiased Z a t that
does not matter one way or the other b : that has nothing that,
calls for sanction or condemnation m either observance or neglect
: of no importance or value one way or the other 3 n ; marked
by no special liking for or dislike of something bi marked by a lack of interest in or concern
about something : apathetic
A 1 being neither excessive nor defective 5 a ' being nehner good
nor bad ; mediocre b : being neither right nor wrong S
: characterized by lack of active quality : neutral 7 a
: not differentiated b : capable of development in more than
one direction; esp ’ not yet embryologically determined in-dlf-
fer-enf-iv adv
Syti INDIFFERENT, UNCONCERNED. INCURIOUS, ALOOF. DETACHED. DIS­
INTERESTED shared meaning element - not showing or feeling
interest sat avid
in-dif-for-sitrt-iBm Vomi-az-om, -(o-)rontA n indifffiRENce: spe­
cif ' belief that all religions are equally valid —-
VostX n
NN'di-portCO Vin-di-jon(t)s\ n : a level of poverty in which real
hardship and deprivation are suffered and comforts of life are
wholly lacking $yn see poverty
jr5.fih.-gg.ne, \hn-do-den\ also sn-’di-q&io Vdi-jan, -d^jenX n [L
indigena] : native'
hvdiq-a-noua \in-Jdtj-o-nos\ adj [LL indigenes, fr. L indigena,
native, fr. OL indu, endo in, within (akin to L in and to L de down)
-f- L gignere to beget more at DE-, rtn) 1 : having originated
in arid being produced, growing, or living naturally in a particular
region or environment 2 1 innate, inborn syn sec native sot
naturalized, exotic — m-dig-a-nous-ly adv — kvdi#'&'D©*i!*'ST&RS
n
sn-dl-sssMTt Vin-di-junt'x adj [MS, fr. MF, fr. L indigent-, indigens,
prp. of indigene to need, fr. OL indu -f L egere to need; akin £0
OHG ekroai thin] H : suffering from indigence : impoverished
2 a archaic : DEFICIENT b archaic : totally lacking in something
specified — sndlgfiSDt «
smdhqost-ed Xoin-Qdi-’jes-tsd, -do-\ adj : not carefully thought
out or arranged ; formless
iO’dbgesf.-fb!© NkjcS-ta- bslX adj [LL indigeszibilis, fr. L in- -f LL
digestibilis digestible] : not digestible : not easily digested —- m-
dh^eat-ibjS'hty V.jes-to-sbi3-at-e\ n — indigestible n
in-dugs-s-tiors \-'jes(h)-ch3h\ n 1 : inability to digest or difficulty
in digesting something 2: a case or attack of indigestion
imriign \in-cdtn\ adj [ME indigne, fr. MF, fr. L indignus] 1
archaic 2 unworthy, undeserving 2 obs : unbecoming, dis­
graceful
iD’dsq-nsfrt Xin-’dig-urntX adj [L indignant-, indigmsns, prp. of
indignari tc be indignant, fr. indignus unworthy, fr. in- -y aignus
worthy —more at decent] : filled with or marked by indignation
— srs-risq-rusot-lY adv
in-dig-nn t'lDfs \»in-dig'“Da-sh^n\ n : anger arotised byf something
unjust, unworthy, or mean syn see anger
ItT-cip-ni-ty \in-"dig-nrt-e\ n, pi -ties [L indigniiat-, indignitas, fr.
indignus] 1 obs 2 lack or loss of dignity or honor 2 d 1 an act
that offends against a person’s dignity or self-respect : insult b
2 humdiating treatment
in-dugG Vin-di^gdX n, pi or -goes [It dial., fr. L indicum, fr.
Gk indikon, fr. nesit. of indikos Indie, fr. Indos India] 1 s; a blue
vat dye obtained from plants (as indigo plants) b 2 the principal
9 abut 9 kitten
an nut eh chin
•j. ioke
si loot
ar further a back a bake a cot, cart
e less a easy g gift i trip ! fife
5 sing 6 flow 0 fiaw 6s coin th thin th this
u foot y yet yii few yu furious zh vision