Edwin W. Peters et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 27, 201914216682 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/216,682 03/17/2014 Edwin W. Peters CAM920130004US2_8150-0497 8411 52021 7590 09/27/2019 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7 Ste. 300 Boca Raton, FL 33498 EXAMINER GODBOLD, DOUGLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2019 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EDWIN W. PETERS, SHERRY L. PLATEK, NITTY T. PULIKAN, BALAJI RANGANATHAN, LIVIU RODEAN, BALASUBRAMANIAN SIVASUBRAMANIAN, and ERIC WOODS ____________ Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This application returns to us after we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject then-pending claims 1 and 3–7. Ex parte Peters, Appeal No. 2016-004945 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2017) (“Bd. Dec.”), reh’g denied (PTAB Aug. 4, 2017) (“Reh’g Dec.”). Prosecution reopened after that decision, and Appellant1 now appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s subsequent rejection of claims 21–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IBM Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention automatically takes notes in a virtual meeting including plural meeting content streams, at least one of which is in a non- text format. After converting the latter streams to text, the text is analyzed to identify a key element within the text to generate consolidated notes including that element. See generally Abstract. Claim 21 is illustrative: 21. A computer-implemented method within a computer hardware system, comprising: receiving a first meeting content stream from a first participant of a virtual meeting; receiving a second meeting content stream from a second participant of the virtual meeting; analyzing text of the first and second meeting content streams to identify key elements therein; cross-referencing the analysis of the text of first and second meeting content streams to identify a common key element in the analysis thereof that is common to both the first and second meeting content streams; and generating consolidated system notes that include the common key element, wherein the identifying of a key element includes establishing that each key element meets a predetermined threshold of significant. RELATED APPEALS As noted previously, we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject then-pending claims 1 and 3–7 in an earlier appeal in the present application. The prior art at issue in this appeal, however, differs from that cited in the earlier appeal. This appeal is also related to appeals filed in (1) Application No. 13/839,038 (Appeal No. 2019-000215); (2) Application No. 13/838,731 Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 3 (Appeal No. 2019-002741); and (3) Application No. 14/523,250 (Appeal No. 2019-002736). See Appeal Br. 1–2, 26.2 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 21–30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 21–40 of copending Application No. 13/839,038. Final Act. 6. The Examiner rejected claims 21–25, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bobbitt (US 2009/0276492 A1; published Nov. 5, 2009). Final Act. 6–9. The Examiner rejected claims 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bobbitt and Caspi (US 2004/0114746 A1; published June 17, 2004). Final Act. 9–10. THE PROVISIONAL DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s provisional double patenting rejection of claims 21–30 (see Appeal Br. 33 n.1), we summarily sustain this rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018); see also Reh’g Dec. 2–3 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March 9, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed July 19, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 28, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed October 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Although the Appeal Brief’s page 3 is not paginated (unlike other pages of the Brief), we nonetheless cite this page as page 3 consistent with its order of presentation in the record. Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 4 (explaining why we properly summarily sustained the Examiner’s provisional double patenting rejection in the earlier appeal). THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner finds that Bobbitt discloses every recited element of independent claim 21 including (1) receiving first and second meeting content stream from first and second virtual meeting participants, respectively; and (2) cross-referencing the analysis of these streams’ text to identify a common key element in the analysis that is common to both streams. Final Act. 6–7. Appellant argues that Bobbitt does not receive two different content streams from the same virtual meeting, let alone cross-reference textual analysis of those streams to identify a common key element as claimed. Appeal Br. 9–14; Reply Br. 2–5. According to Appellant, Bobbitt’s “commonalities” are determined based on common participants—not cross- referencing textual analysis as claimed. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4–5. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding that Bobbitt (1) receives first and second meeting content stream from first and second virtual meeting participants, respectively; and (2) cross- references the analysis of these streams’ text to identify a common key element in the analysis that is common to both streams (the “cross- referencing limitation”)? Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 5 ANALYSIS As noted above, a key disputed issue is whether Bobbitt discloses receiving meeting content streams from respective participants of the same virtual meeting. The Specification, however, does not define the term “stream,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 12, 21, 34–35, 47, 62, 64–67 (defining various terms explicitly). The Specification does, however, explain that meeting content can include, for example, (1) messaging (e.g., chat, instant messaging), (2) video, and/or (3) audio data, and that this content can be transmitted across one or more channels or streams and recorded. Spec. ¶ 28. The Specification’s paragraphs 39 to 43 give examples of these meeting content streams, including meeting slides as an example of a video stream, and chat as an example of a messaging stream. Notably, however, meeting content streams are not limited to messaging, video, and audio data: they can also include some other unspecified form of meeting content stream. See Spec. ¶ 36 (listing exemplary meeting content as a (1) video stream; (2) audio stream; (3) messaging stream; and/or (4) other meeting content stream). This description informs our understanding of the recited meeting content streams, and that it is not limited to a particular type of stream. We, therefore, construe the term “stream” with its plain meaning in the art that is synonymous with “channel,” namely “a path for data.” See Ian R. Sinclair, THE HARPERCOLLINS DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS 39 (1991) (noting that a “channel” is also called a “stream”), 229 (defining “stream” by referring to the definition of “channel”). Accord Spec. ¶ 28 (noting that Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 6 meeting content can be transmitted across one or more channels or streams and recorded). Given this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Bobbitt discloses receiving meeting content streams from respective participants of the same virtual meeting. As noted in the Abstract, Bobbitt’s system automatically summarizes significant events that occur within a collaborative discussion in an immersive collaborative environment. To this end, the system summarizes a captured record, namely a sequential data set that can include, among other things, audio, video, and user comments so that by documenting the associated collaborative discussion within a virtual workspace environment, a user can obtain the gist or substance of a meeting that occurred within that environment. See Bobbitt ¶¶ 32–35. Specifically, activities or events within a virtual workspace or immersive collaborative environment are monitored in real- or near real-time, including, among other things, content, actions, data accesses, individuals present, conversations, and significant events are inferred from this monitoring. Bobbitt ¶¶ 45–46. Because users participate in this virtual workspace or immersive collaborative environment via their workstations as shown in Bobbitt’s Figure 1, data that is monitored within this environment, including the associated audio, video, and discussion, would have been received via meeting content streams, namely data paths, from respective participants. Although only one participant is shown using a workstation in Bobbitt’s Figure 1, there are nevertheless other participants in that virtual workspace as shown by their avatars in the virtual conference room depicted in that workspace. See Bobbitt ¶ 38 (noting that users are represented in the virtual business or enterprise environment as avatars that occupy the spaces or Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 7 rooms), ¶ 39 (noting that groups of users can be depicted as performing business tasks while in the virtual world, including attending meetings or collaborating with others). Although the users’ avatars are shown seated (or standing) around a table in the virtual workspace in Bobbitt’s Figure 1, the actual users are nevertheless participating in that virtual meeting via their respective workstations, transferring data to and from the system hosting that virtual workspace via their respective data paths or streams. Accord Ans. 9 (noting that each user in Bobbitt’s Figure 1 has a workstation, and content is necessarily received from each user’s workstation to establish and conduct a meeting). That the block diagrams of Bobbitt’s immersive collaborative system and associated computing environment in Figures 4 and 10 show devices for multiple clients as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 9) only bolsters the Examiner’s findings in this regard. See Bobbitt ¶¶ 56–57, 99–101 (describing the functionality of Figures 4 and 10). Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Bobbitt’s criteria identification component functionality in Figure 8 anticipates the recited cross-referencing limitation. See Final Act. 7 (citing Bobbitt ¶¶ 79–81); Ans. 7–8. As we noted in our earlier decision, the term “cross- referencing” is not defined in the Specification, unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Bd. Dec. 5. We further noted that, according to the Specification’s paragraph 37, analysis engine 125 can index and/or cross-reference meeting content to extract key elements therefrom, and that this extraction can use significance scoring based on (1) time spent on the point; (2) the point’s appearance in multiple meeting content streams; (3) note commonalities, etc. Id. We emphasized, Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 8 however, that although this broad and exemplary description informed our understanding of cross-referencing in the context of the claimed invention in the earlier appeal, it was not so limited. Id. at 5–6. That is the case here. Therefore, as in our earlier decision, we construe the term “cross-reference” under its plain meaning, namely “reference from one part of a book, etc., to another.” Id. at 6 (citing dictionary definition). With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Bobbitt anticipates the recited cross-referencing limitation. Bobbitt’s paragraphs 79 to 81, on which the Examiner relies (see Final Act. 7; Ans. 7–8), refer to an alternative system in Figure 8 that uses a criteria identification component 108 that includes (1) content determination component 802; (2) contacts determination component 804; and (3) context determination component 806. As explained in Bobbitt’s paragraph 79, the content determination component can establish the subject of discussion within a virtual environment by using, among other things, speech recognition, text analyzers, or pattern recognition to gather information about the virtual workspace—information that is then analyzed to establish the workspace’s content. Similarly, the contacts determination component can employ voice or pattern recognition to identify presence of contacts within the environment, where this presence information can be used to further analyze the factors surrounding the discussion within the virtual environment. Bobbitt ¶ 80. For example, commonalities can be drawn between contacts to increase probabilities of determining a topic of discussion from the record. Id. If, for example, there are three participants in an immersive collaborative Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 9 discussion, it can be determined that these three individuals are members of the team for Project XYZ, and, therefore, it can be determined that there is a high probability that the discussion is centered around Project XYZ. Id. Notably, this determination can be supplemented with other information, such as content determined by the content determination component. Id. The clear import of this functionality is that, by using text analysis and pattern recognition to gather and analyze information to (1) establish the virtual workspace’s content and contacts; (2) draw commonalities between these contacts; and (3) determine the topic of discussion involving these contacts, Bobbitt’s system effectively cross-references the textual analysis of the participants’ meeting content streams or data paths to identify a common key element, namely the topic. We emphasize Bobbitt’s pattern recognition here, for this technique includes textual pattern recognition. See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 394 (5th ed. 2002) (defining “pattern recognition,” in pertinent part, as “[t]he recognition of purely mathematical or textual patterns”) (emphasis added). Appellant’s contention, then, that Bobbitt is ostensibly silent as to how Bobbitt determines that the three participants are members of the same team for Project XYZ in paragraph 80 (Reply Br. 4) is unpersuasive. This contention ignores the fact that textual pattern recognition is used to identify participants from which commonalities are drawn—participants who transfer data to and from the system hosting the virtual workspace via their respective data paths or streams as noted previously. That Bobbitt’s topic determination based on this pattern recognition can be supplemented with other information similarly obtained via textual analysis and pattern recognition, such as content determined by the content determination component (as noted in paragraph 80), only Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 10 further bolsters the notion that Bobbitt effectively cross-references the textual analysis of the participants’ meeting content streams or data paths to identify a common key element, namely the topic of the participants’ discussion. Lastly, we note that although the Examiner relies on the embodiments of Bobbitt’s Figures 1 and 8 in finding that Bobbitt anticipates claim 21 (see Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 7–9), this multi-embodiment approach is not only undisputed on this record, it is not dispositive of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection in any event. It is well settled that a prior art reference can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not expressly spell out all limitations arranged or combined as claimed if ordinarily skilled artisans, reading the reference, would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement or combination. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). That is, a reference need not always expressly discuss the actual combination to anticipate. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1344. Rather, a reference can still anticipate if it teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined, and ordinarily skilled artisans would be able to implement the combination. Id. That is the case here, at least with respect to common virtual workspace and participant functionalities shown in Bobbitt’s Figures 1 and 8. We reach this conclusion noting the figures’ striking similarity in this regard, including their identical depictions of the virtual workspace and its participants, the immersive collaborative display, and participant using a workstation. Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 11 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21, and claims 22–25, 29, and 30 not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Claim 26 We are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 26. Claim 26 recites the common key element, within the consolidated system notes, includes a link to at least a portion of the first and second meeting content streams that are stored within a database, and the portion, to the link is directed, includes a relevant portion of the first and second meeting content streams from which the common key element was extracted. Although the Examiner acknowledges on page 9 of the Final Rejection that Bobbitt does not teach these elements specifically, and cites Caspi to cure this deficiency, the Examiner nonetheless clarifies on pages 10 and 11 of the Answer that Bobbitt—not Caspi—was cited to teach the recited (1) common key element; (2) consolidated system notes; and (3) first and second meeting streams. As part of this clarification, the Examiner emphasizes that Caspi was cited merely for teaching linking original content streams at relevant points in a summary, and that the claim would have been obvious over Bobbitt’s and Caspi’s collective teachings. See Ans. 10–11; Final Act. 10 (explaining that it would have been obvious to combine Caspi’s linking functionality with Bobbitt’s system to allow the user to more easily review relevant portions of a conference). Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 12 Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 14–18; Reply Br. 5–8), we see no harmful error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. First, a key aspect of this dispute centers on the meaning of the term “link” in the context of claim 26, namely that the common key element, within the consolidated system notes, includes a link to a portion of the stored meeting content streams. The Specification, however, does not define the term “link,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 12, 21, 34–35, 47, 62, 64–67 (defining various terms explicitly). Although the Specification’s paragraph 21 defines the term “communicatively linked” clearly and unambiguously, there is no such concrete definition for the term “link” as the term is used in claim 26—an omission underscored by Appellant’s reliance on a general- purpose dictionary in defining the term. See Reply Br. 7. Nevertheless, the Specification discusses various linking functionalities in paragraphs 31, 44, 46, and 54. Paragraph 31, for example, explains that virtual meeting module 120 can be configured to link meeting content 140 to the data extracted therefrom (e.g., the text of the audio, video and/or messaging channels). Notably, this paragraph indicates, quite broadly, that this linking can be performed in any suitable manner including, for example, tagging the meeting content with a timestamp to indicate when each meeting content portion was made. Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification adds, quite broadly, that data or notes extracted or generated from the meeting content can be linked or otherwise associated with virtual meeting content having the same timestamp to allow quick recall of meeting content during that timestamp. Id. Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 13 The Specification’s paragraph 44 similarly discusses linking in broad and exemplary terms. That paragraph explains that consolidated system notes 145 can include links back to the associated meeting content. For example, the consolidated system notes can present key elements that provide links back to the underlying recording of one or more content streams of the meeting content from which the notes were extracted. Spec. ¶ 44. The Specification adds that this linking of the consolidated system notes to the original meeting content can include linking the notes to surrounding meeting content to provide context. Id. The Specification’s paragraph 46 similarly discusses linking in broad and exemplary terms. That paragraph explains that each key element may link to individual content streams relating to that element, and that the virtual meeting module can link the key elements to meeting content recordings that occurred at or near the same time. For example, the virtual meeting module can tag the meeting content with a timestamp indicating when each portion of the meeting content was made. Spec. ¶ 46. In addition, Specification explains, quite broadly, that the virtual meeting module can link the notes or key elements extracted from the meeting content with the actual meeting content, allowing quick recall of audio, video, chat and/or other data streams during that time. Id. Although these descriptions inform our understanding of the recited link in the context of the disclosed invention, the term is not so limited. We, therefore, construe the term “link” with its plain meaning in the art. The term “link” is defined, in pertinent part, as synonymous with a pointer, namely “[a] character or group of characters that indicates the location of an item of data in memory.” John Daintith & Edmund Wright, THE FACTS ON Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 14 FILE DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER SCIENCE 122 (Revised ed. 2006) (small capital letters omitted) (“Facts on File Dictionary”). Accord id. at 173 (defining the term “pointer” similarly). Given this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Caspi’s summarization functionality for at least suggesting the recited link (Ans. 10–11), particularly in view of Caspi’s indices in Figure 9B that mark “points” or recording cues by a time stamp on a recorded conference 900b. See Caspi ¶¶ 70–71. These index-based pointers reasonably comport with the definition of “link” above, namely “[a] character or group of characters that indicates the location of an item of data in memory.” Facts on File Dictionary 173. We reach this conclusion even if claim 26 required an activatable link—which it does not. Although dependent claim 27 requires activating the link, there is no such activation in claim 26 from which claim 27 depends, nor will we import such a requirement into claim 26 despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 18 (arguing that claim 26’s link is “activatable code”). Nevertheless, Appellant’s arguments regarding Caspi’s individual shortcomings regarding the recited link (Appeal Br. 14–18; Reply Br. 5–8), do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is not based on Caspi alone, but rather based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accord Ans. 10–11 (noting this point). Although the claimed invention is not “a recipe to make soup” as Appellant contends (Reply Br. 6), familiar items may nevertheless have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and often ordinarily skilled artisans can fit multiple references’ teachings together like puzzle pieces, as Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 15 is the case here. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). On this record, then, the Examiner’s proposed enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See id. at 417. Moreover, the Examiner provides further persuasive rationale to support the combination, namely that the combination would allow the user to more easily review relevant portions of the conference. See Final Act. 10. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26. Claims 27 and 28 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 reciting activation of the link, within the consolidated system notes, causes the relevant portion of the first and second meeting content streams from which the common key element was extracted to be presented. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 8–10), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Caspi’s summarization functionality for at least suggesting the recited link activation and resulting content presentation (Final Act. 10; Ans. 11), particularly in view of Caspi’s indices in Figure 9B that mark “points” or recording cues by a time stamp on a recorded conference 900b for playback. See Caspi ¶¶ 55, 70–71. After a participant, such as a moderator, activates or invokes a “recording cue,” such as the cues at times Ta and Tb in Caspi’s Figure 4, Caspi’s system either marks predetermined periods (e.g., 410 and 412) on the recorded conference or saves these periods as a separate summary file. See Caspi ¶ 55. That is, for later playback, the system either marks the point Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 16 where the cue was recorded on the conference’s master recording, or stores the associated passage in a separate file. Caspi ¶ 62. In either case, the conference portion pertinent to the cue is designated for later playback. Id. As shown in Caspi’s Figures 7A and 7B, summarizations are played by activating a summary function via the user interface in Figure 7B by (1) selecting the conference from window 7002, and (2) selecting the play button. Caspi ¶¶ 64–66. Our emphasis underscores that by activating this summary playback functionality, the associated links to the respective content portions, such as those shown in Caspi’s Figure 9B, are effectively activated to retrieve and play back the particular content portions associated with those links. Accord Ans. 11. We reach this conclusion emphasizing that claim 27 does not specify how the link is activatedan activation that is at least suggested by Caspi’s link-based playback functionality. Appellant’s arguments, including the contention that Caspi’s summaries and complete record in paragraph 71 are within the same file (Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 8–10), are not only incommensurate with the scope of the claim, but also do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is not based on Caspi alone, but rather based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27, and claim 28 not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2019-000163 Application 14/216,682 17 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–30 (provisional) obviousness-type double patenting 21–30 21–25, 29, 30 § 102 Bobbitt 21–25, 29, 30 26–28 § 103 Bobbitt, Caspi 26–28 Overall Outcome 21–30 AFFIRMED Notice of References Cited . .. . . . . . ~, .. . . . . ~. ~ ,;:.~.~ ·\~/,-... . . - ' . . . . . . . . . . ~ : . .. THE FACTS ON FILE .. ::. ~ ·< ..-:.... DICTIONARY OF .~::-: ~ ~......... . 1 ·.- # " .. ~ - ~~~ ~ ~{'" ~ ~·-COMPUTER SCIENCE ,~: u ~{ i'i:ll~ . JOHN DAINTITH & EDMUND WRIGHT T he Facts On File Dictionary of Computer Science Revised Edition Copyright © 2001, 2006 by Marker House Books Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information conract: Facts On File, Inc. An imprint of lnfobase Publishing 132 West 31st Street New York NY 10001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Facts on File dictionary of computer science. / edited by John Daintith, Edmund Wright. - Rev. ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references ISB 1 0-8160-5999-3 1. Computer science-Dictionaries. I. Daintith, John. IT Wright, Edmund (Thomas Edmund Farnsworth). Ill. Facts on File, Inc. QA76.15.F345 2006 004.03-dc22 2006042004 Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755. You can find Faces On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.facrsonfile.com Compiled and typeset by Market House Books Led, Aylesbury, UK Printed in the United $races of America MP 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This book is printed on acid-free paper This dictionary is one oi a seri~ dents of computer science. but ~t srudenrs and to anyone inreresre...: m oaries in a variety of disciplines. i;: ence, physics, machemarics, iorcrux science. The first edition of this book v...s ;: extensively revised and extended .in~ the terminology of computing. , • • • of over 500 pronunciations for t~ • pendixes have been included co,~ - tensions, domain names, and nume.~, and a bibliography. A guide co .:sm= • est version of the book. We would like to thank aJI the pea;; • ..\ list of contributors is given on th: ad: the many people who ha\·e gi\·en ~ link ribbon l rows of embossed paper rotat ing cylinder hammers (not all shown) barrel printer (o l hammers (not all shown) embossed characters rotating metal belt band printer Line printers link 1. (linkage) The part of a computer program, possibly a single instruction or address, that passes control and PARAME· TERS berween separate portions of the pro- gram. 2. (pointer) A character or group of char- acters that indicates the LOCATION of an item of da ta in memory. 3. A path for communications. See data link. 4. See hypertext. 5. To join together program modules chat have been compiled separately ro form a program that can be executed. This opera- tion is performed by a LINK EDITOR. linkage See link. link editor (linkage editor; Linker) A UTILITY PROGRAM that combines a number of user-written or library routines, which have already been compiled or assembled but are individually incomplete, into a sin- gle executable program. This program is then either stored on disk or placed in main store for immediate execution. A link edi- tor that performs the latter function is sometimes called a link loader. See also program library. linked list See list. 122 linker See link editor . link loader See link editor. hnkrot /link-rot/ Informal The coc.cii- :lon in which HYPERTEXT leads no,vn= recause Web sites have removed or reo9- aized their Web pages and the links ue outdated. Linux /lin-uks/ A freely distribucab!e ~ crating system chat runs on several hard- ,..are platforms including Imel .m::: ~locorola microprocessors, and rhus a;; PCs and Macintoshes. Linux is a form r,F :'lX written by Linus Torva lds. Its use has .ncreased rapidly in recent years, especi.a..T 'Or SERVERS. liquid crystal display See LCD. Lisp A high-level programming laogn....?5'C ,vhose name is derived from list proc~ ~r was developed in the early 1960s. Lisp was designed specifically for the manipwa- ;:ion of LIST and TREE structures of varioes kinds and has an unusual SYNTAX. Ir ""35 larer taken up by those working in .i:r- c:mergenr field of ARTIFICIAL INTEWG~a.. There are now a number of d ialects of:..sp, extended in various directions. Lisp ?~ grams are generally translated by an C-.Tu- PRETER. list One form in which a collection of dara items can be held in compurer mem- ory. The items themselves are in a paro_"":!- l_a r order. The items could all be inreg~~ to r example, or real numbers, or Jener$. - ,hey could be a mixture of, say, inrege;5 and real numbers. If all the items are or ilie same type then the list is a one-dimension:lJ \ RRAY. There are two commonly used forms m which this collection of data items is hd.: in memory. In a sequentially allocated lk--: rhe items are stored in their correct order c-. adjacent LOCATIONS. ln a linked list each,<>- cation contains a data item and a LC-.'K coc- ra ining the address of the ne.'Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation