Ex Parte Portilla

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2004

09351208 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GUSTAVO PORTILLA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, BARRY and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-5. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates generally to translation
systems and more specifically, to a system that provides for a
cross-reference for each information element throughout all the
languages. A cross-reference table characterizes each one of
indexed information elements throughout all the languages (brief,
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
2
page 5). The system then finds the indexed entries for each word
and the indexed structural arrangement to form the complete
sentence or phrase (id.).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computerized language translation system, comprising:
A) a first indexed database including a predetermined
number of languages and a predetermined number of
information elements for each language;
B) means for referencing uniquely indexed information
elements in a given language to information elements in the
other languages;
C) means for characterizing said information elements as a
predetermined component class from a predetermined number of
component classes in each of said languages;
D) a second indexed database including a predetermined
number of structural arrangements for said information
elements, said arrangements corresponding to a unique
indexed entry in said second indexed database for each
combination of component classes;
E) means of detecting and decoding a plurality of
information elements in one language to determine the
structural arrangement from said second indexed database
with the corresponding component classes and indexed entries
of the information elements;
F) means for matching said structural arrangements and
said information element indexed entries and component
classes in one language with other structural arrangements
corresponding to other languages; and
G) means for assembling said information elements in at
least one of the other languages and further including an
output.
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
3
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Asahioka et al (Asahioka) 5,075,850 Dec. 24, 1991
Ikuta et al. (Ikuta) 5,852,798 Dec. 22, 1998
Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ikuta and Asahioka.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
September 28, 2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the
appeal brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 13, 2001) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 17, 2002) for Appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant argues that Asahioka provides for a translation
system that relies on the use of a “retrieval flag” and applying
speculation based on the translation in the most recent sentence
(brief, page 5; reply brief, page 2). Appellant further points
out that the claimed use of indexed databases for structural
arrangement or cross-referencing these arrangements from
different languages is different from the technique of Asahioka
using an educated guess for selecting words with multiple
meanings by giving preference to the meaning used in the most
recent sentence (brief, page 5). Additionally, Appellant argues
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
4
that Asahioka needs to use “flag retrieval” technique because
merely identifying “subject-predicate-complement” in a string of
words is not enough to solve ambiguities (reply brief, page 2).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner relies on
the entire text between col. 3, line 44 and col. 6, line 49 and
merely equates the division of a sentence “into subject,
predicate and complement” with the claimed “predetermined
component classes” (answer, page 10). The Examiner further
argues that the suggested combination does not need the use of
the “retrieval flags” and is merely based on the teachings
related to the use of structural analysis (id.).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A
prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
5
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d
281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In considering the
question of the obviousness of the claimed invention in view of
the prior art relied upon, the Examiner is expected to make the
factual determination set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See also In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
After reviewing Asahioka, we agree with Appellant that the
claimed arrangements of the different component classes is
different from the “flag retrieval” technique of Asahioka.
Although Asahioka provides for translation of a sentence and
storing the sentence structure information such as subject,
complement and predicate (col. 3, lines 52-61), it is the stored
sentence number information for indicating the most recent
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
6
sentence(s) that is consulted for translating words in subsequent
sentences that may be incomplete or have multiple meanings. A
translation information supply section retrieves the past
translated sentence with the largest sentence number (i.e., the
most recent sentence) and selects the meaning that is the closest
to the translated word in the most recent sentence (col. 4, lines
19-41). Asahioka further discloses that a “retrieval flag” is
added to the original word when translation by a dictionary alone
is not sufficient and translation information from the prior
sentence is needed (col. 4, lines 55-59). Therefore, although
the structural arrangement of a sentence to be translated may be
determined (col. 5, lines 56-65), the translation is still based
on the sentence structure information from the newest sentence
extracted by the information supply section (col. 6, lines 1-3).
We further find Appellant’s arguments differentiating the
claimed second indexed database including a predetermined number
of structural arrangements over the use of the “retrieval flag”
of Asahioka, to be persuasive. As discussed above, what the
Examiner characterizes in Asahioka as dividing the sentence into
subject, predicate and complement (answer, pages 10, 14 and 19)
is not the same as the structural arrangement corresponding to a
unique index entry in the second database. The structural
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
7
analysis of Asahioka, is actually used for translation of an
incomplete sentence based on a previous sentence and determining
the missing part of the sentence from the translated words of the
most recent sentence. In that regard, even if only the
structural analysis of Asahioka without using the “retrieval
flag” in combination with the word dictionary and the syntax
dictionary of Ikuta is considered (answer, page 20), the
structural analysis still does rely on the previous use/meaning
of the most recent sentence for translation. Thus, the Examiner
has failed to provide a prima facie case of obviousness as the
combination of Ikuta and Asahioka falls short of disclosing or
suggesting the recited features of claim 1. Accordingly, the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 over Ikuta and
Asahioka cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
8
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2002-1985
Application No. 09/351,208
9
Sanchelima & Associates, P.A.
Jesus Sanchelima, Esq.
235 S.W. Le Jeune Road
Miami, FL 33134