UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte ERIC J. HORVITZ
____________
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
Technology Center 2100
____________
Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JENNIFER L.
MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention generally is directed to a computer system that
employs user feedback and a reasoning component to improve the accuracy
of a determination of user context. (See generally Abstract, Spec. ¶ [0005].)
An additional goal of the claimed invention is to use the user feedback and
reasoning to refine and enhance the user’s experience by quickly and
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
2
accurately facilitating communication between people of different
languages. (Spec. ¶ [0006].) Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented system that facilitates
determination of user context, comprising:
a context component that facilitates capture and analysis
of context data to determine the user context, the user context is
processed to determine at least one of user intentions, goals or
needs;
a clarification component that initiates user interaction as
feedback in a format of questions and answers to validate
determination of the user context, the clarification component
includes a language model library that is employed to facilitate
translation of data to a language determined by the context data
analysis and rank of a language model associated with the
language, the feedback is generated in a language of the user
and in one or more other languages of indigenous people with
whom the user is trying to communicate; and
a reasoning component that is employed to reason about
the analyzed context data to improve accuracy in the process of
determining the user context, the reasoning is performed about
the context data based in part on an identified focus of attention
and one or more constraints, translation of data can be enabled
based on the reasoning and the one or more constraints, the
reasoning component facilitates modifications to the questions
and answers in form and content based on at least one of
learned information, context information, geolocation
information, one or more criteria, constraints, clues or user
interactions
wherein a memory operatively coupled to a processor
retains at least one of the context component, clarification
component or the reasoning component.
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
3
Independent claims 16 and 20 each include similar features. Claim 20
additionally recites a “means for outputting at least one of an image or a
video clip related to the user.”
THE REJECTION1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Potter (US 2007/0005369 A1; filed June 30, 2005) and
Robarts et al. (US 6,842,877; issued Jan. 11, 2005). (Ans. 4-24.) 2
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Potter and Robarts collectively disclose every
recited feature of independent claims 1, 16, and 20. (Ans. 4-8.) With
respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Potter discloses the context
component and memory limitations, while Robarts teaches the reasoning
component limitation. (Ans. 4-8.) Then, for the clarification component,
the Examiner finds that Potter teaches or suggests (1) a clarification
component that initiates user interaction as feedback in the format of
questions and answers to validate determination of the user context and (2)
that the feedback is generated in the language of the user. (Ans. 5-6.) But
1 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph in the Answer and states that the issue is not presented on
appeal for review. (Ans. 2-3, 13.) However, this rejection of claim 17 was
still included in the Examiner’s Answer. (Ans. 3-4). Based on the
representations of the Examiner, we understand that the rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn and therefore
is not before this panel for review.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 3,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 19, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed Dec. 15, 2009.
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
4
the Examiner relies on Robarts as teaching or suggesting (1) a language
model library that is employed to facilitate translation of data to a language
determined by the context data analysis and rank of a language model
associated with the language and (2) that feedback is in the format of
question and answers in one or more languages of indigenous people with
whom the user is trying to communicate. (Ans. 5-7.)
The Examiner presents the same findings with respect to independent
claims 16 and 20. (Ans. 4-8.) Regarding claim 20, the Examiner also finds
that Robarts discloses the claimed means for outputting at least one image or
video clip. (Ans. 8.)
Appellant asserts that Potter and Robarts collectively fail to teach or
suggest (1) modifying the questions and answers in form and content based
on the recited information, (2) generating feedback in one or more other
languages of indigenous people, (3) ranking of language models, (4)
processing the user context to determine at least one of user intentions,
goals, or needs, and (5) outputting at least one of an image or video clip.
(App. Br. 5-11; Reply Br. 3-12.)
Appellant also argues, among other things, that neither Potter nor
Robarts disclose that “the user interaction is via at least one of the user and
the indigenous people,” as recited in claim 6. Further, Appellant argues that
Potter does not teach or suggest “employ[ing] a probabilistic and/or
statistical-based analysis to prognose or infer an action that the user desires
to be automatically performed,” as recited in claim 11. (Ans. 11-12
(emphasis in original).)
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
5
ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Potter and Robarts collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) a clarification component (a) that initiates the user interaction as
feedback in a format of questions and answers, the feedback is generated in
a language of the user and in one or more other languages of indigenous
people; and (b) includes a language model library that is employed to
facilitate translation of data to a language determined by the context data
analysis and rank of a language model associated with the language; and (2)
a reasoning component that facilitates modifications to the questions and
answers in form and content based on the recited information?
2. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 by
additionally finding that Potter and Robarts collectively would have taught
or suggested outputting at least one of an image or video clip?
3. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
6 by finding that Potter and Robarts collectively would have taught or
suggested user interaction via at least one of the user and the indigenous
people?
4. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
11 by finding that Potter and Robarts collectively would have taught or
suggested the reasoning component employs a probabilistic and/or
statistical-based analysis to prognose or infer an action that the user desires
to be automatically performed?
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
6
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. At the outset, we note that Appellant repeats claim
language throughout the arguments and then merely asserts without any
further evidence. See App. Br. 5-6, 8-9. However, such assertions are not
considered a separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
However, regarding the clarification component of claim 1, Appellant
argues that Robarts does not teach or suggest “a system that facilitates a
two-way communication between users that understand different languages”
or generating feedback in one or more languages other than the user’s
language. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 12.) First, as the Examiner identifies,
“facilitating a two-way communication” is not recited in claim 1 or any
other independent claim. (Ans. 18.) Claim 1 instead recites that “the
feedback is generated in a language of the user and in one or more other
languages of indigenous people with whom the user is trying to
communicate.” (App. Br. 14.) We agree with the Examiner that Robarts
teaches or suggests this limitation.
Robarts discloses that the system may include language related
attribute sets including audio and textual translation features. (Ans. 18-19
(citing Robarts, col. 25, ll. 5-24).) For example, Robarts describes that a
user may employ a Guatemalan attribute set including, among other things,
the ability to translate Spanish language audio and text into corresponding
English audio text and audio. (Id.) In other words, Robarts describes to one
of ordinary skill in the art the ability to provide feedback both in English
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
7
(e.g., the language of the user) and Spanish (e.g., the language of indigenous
people with whom the user is trying to communicate). Accordingly, the
Examiner correctly finds that Robarts teaches to one of skill in the art the
claimed limitation of generating feedback in the languages of the user and
one or more other indigenous languages. (Ans. 18-19, 21-22.)
Also with respect to the clarification component, we disagree with
Appellant that Robarts fails to teach or suggest a “language model library
that is employed to facilitate translation of data to a language determined by
the context data analysis and rank of a language model associated with the
language,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 8.) As discussed above, Robarts
describes, in an exemplary embodiment, including a language attribute set
and translating from one language into another. (Ans. 18-19 (citing
Robarts, col. 25, ll. 5-24).) As acknowledged by Appellant, Robarts also
identifies that the relevance of attributes, including for example languages,
may be numerically ranked. (See App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 10; see also Ans.
5, 20 (citing Robarts, col. 26, ll. 35-69 and quoting Robarts, col. 28, ll. 33-
46).) Thus, Robarts’ teaching of ranking a language and its respective
associated model with a higher relevance would suggest to one of skill in the
art the language is more relevant to the system’s analysis and also employed
to facilitate whether to translate to or from the language.
Appellant further argues that Robarts does not “translat[e] data to a
language.” (Reply Br. 10.) To the contrary, as identified above, Robarts
does in fact disclose translating data, text or audio, from one language to
another. (Ans. 5 (citing Robarts, col. 25, ll. 3-24).) Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and find that Robarts teaches or
suggests a “language model library that is employed to facilitate translation
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
8
of data to a language determined by the context data analysis and rank of a
language model associated with the language” as recited in claim 1.
With respect to the reasoning component, the Appellant contends that
neither Potter nor Robarts teach modifying the questions and answers in
form and content based on at least one of learned information, context
information, geolocation information, one or more criteria, constraints, clues
or user interactions, as required by claim 1.3 (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4-5.)
More specifically, the Appellant states that Robarts does not teach or suggest
(a) feedback in a question and answer form and (b) feedback that is modified
in form and content based on at least one of the recited criteria (App. Br. 7.)
These arguments are unavailing.
First, Robarts describes receiving feedback or communicating with a
user in a question and answer format. (See e.g., Ans. 16-17 (highlighting
that Robarts teaches a system that can prompt the user for information and
the system can also use information in order to provide appropriate
responses to the user)). In at least one embodiment, the Robarts system
prompts, or provides a question, to a user to select a theme and the user
responds, or answers, by selecting a theme.4 (Ans. 7-8 (citing to col. 28, ll.
45-69).) Robarts provides additional examples of communicating with a
user in question and answer format. (See Robarts, col. 56, ll. 54- 57:30
(describing the manual feedback mechanism of the Manual Appropriateness
Verification Model and providing examples of dialog in question and
3 We do not address the Appellant’s argument that Potter does not disclose
the reasoning component because the Examiner relies solely on Robarts for
teaching this feature. (See Ans. 7-8, 14, 16-17.)
4 The Examiner also cites, and the Appellant does not dispute, that Potter
provides feedback in a question and answer format. (Ans. 6; App. Br. 6-7.)
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
9
answer format with a user); col. 4, ll. 25-35 (describing that the system can
use information to more intelligently answer questions).)
Next, Robarts teaches or suggests modifying feedback (i.e. questions
and answers provided to the user) in form and content based on at least
context information. As acknowledged by Appellant, Robarts “relates to a
system that changes a theme based on a change in contextual information.”
(App. Br. 7.) This change in theme may then change or modify how the
system responds or provides feedback to the user. (See e.g., Ans. 17 (citing
that Robarts teaches in col. 31, ll. 12-19 using the current theme to provide
appropriate responses and functionality to a user).) Further, in another
example, Robarts teaches that when context information is used to determine
the user is driving a car, the system will respond to questions differently.
(Robarts, col. 4, ll. 25-35.) Thus, changing the theme based on contextual
information also changes or modifies the questions and answers presented to
the user as required by claim 1.
Appellant further contends that Robarts does not disclose modifying
the feedback in form and content. (App. Br. 7, 8; Reply Br. 6-7.) We find
this argument unpersuasive. Robarts describes that the system may modify
the form (e.g., whether it presents a question or an answer to a user) and
content (e.g., the substance of the question or response) based on changes to
contextual information. (Ans. 7-8, 17, 19 (citing Robarts, col. 28, ll. 45-69,
col. 30, ll. 58-61, col. 31, ll. 12-19, col. 49, ll. 12-25, col. 51, ll. 53-60).)
Moreover, Robarts teaches that the system may use automated learning
techniques, such information obtained from monitored user interactions, to
modify or enhance the theme and theme-layout, again suggesting
modifications to the form and content of the feedback provided to the user.
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
10
(Ans. 7-8, 17; Robarts, col. 49, ll. 12-21.) This demonstrates that the form
and content may be modified based on learned or context information as
well as user interactions as recited.
Appellant’s remaining arguments with respect to the reasoning
component are unsupported. For example, Appellant argue (1) that
prompting a user to select a theme based on current context is “not
equivalent to modifications to the questions and answers in form and
content”; (2) that choosing a theme on a menu basis does not teach or
suggest facilitating modifications to questions and answers in form and
content; and (3) that a theme is not the same as modifications to the
questions and answers in form and content. (Reply Br. 7.) The Appellant’s
arguments on these points are at best conclusory. Mere arguments
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. Cf., In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Nonetheless, as laid out above, prompting a user to select a current
theme, whether through a menu or not, is one example of feedback in a
question and answer format.5 Next, as also discussed in detail above,
changes in context information or current theme may modify how the system
responds or interacts with a user. Thus, it is not merely the “prompting a
user to select a theme,” the “choosing a theme on a menu basis,” or the
“theme” itself that meets the claimed limitation of modifying questions and
answers in form and content. Instead, Robarts meets the claimed limitation
because it teaches or suggests modifying how the system responds to a user
5 Appellant has not provided any response to rebut that asking a user to
select one item from a menu would be a question and a user selecting an
item from a menu would be an answer.
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
11
based on changes in the current theme, which may occur at least based on
contextual information.
Appellant additionally argues that “automatic learning techniques”
and “monitoring user interactions” as disclosed by Robarts are distinct from
using the interactive question and answer format of claim 1 and that Robarts
teaches away from “a question and answer format to facilitate modifications
to the questions and answers in form content.” (Reply Br. 4-5.) We
disagree. First, claim 1 does not require “a question and answer format to
facilitate modifications to the questions and answers,” as asserted by
Appellant, but instead requires the reasoning component to facilitate
modifications to the questions and answers in form and context based on at
least one of the recited criteria, such as learned information, contextual
information, or location information. (App. Br. 14.)
Further, as outlined above, Robarts teaches or suggests this feature.
Although the above analysis relied mainly on context information as the
basis for the modifications, the claim recites other possible criteria such as
“learned information” and “user interactions.” (App. Br. 14.) Therefore,
modifications to the theme or theme-related information based on either
information obtained from “automatic learning techniques” or “monitoring
user interactions” as taught by Robarts also teaches or suggests to one of
skill in the art the claimed modification limitation. (Ans. 8, 14-15.)
Accordingly, we find that Robarts teaches or suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art “the reasoning component [that] facilitates
modifications to the questions and answers in form and content based on at
least one of learned information, context information, geolocation
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
12
information, one or more criteria, constraints, clues or user interactions,” as
recited in claim 1.
Finally, Appellant presents arguments that Potter does not disclose
claimed limitations such as (1) ranking of language models and (2)
modifying questions and answers. (App. Br. 6-7.) These contentions though
unpersuasively focus only on the teachings of Potter, without considering the
teachings of Robarts. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). Here, as discussed above, Robarts teaches or suggests the claimed
limitations of (1) modifying questions and answers and (2) ranking of
language models. (See also Ans. 5, 7-8, 14-20.) Moreover, Appellants do
not dispute what Potter and Robarts collectively teach. See App. Br. 4-13;
Reply Br. 2-14. Accordingly, we do not address the arguments regarding
Potter.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1.
Claim 16
Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for the
patentability of claim 16 (App. Br. 9) as for claim 1 (App. Br. 5-8). We
find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons set forth supra. (See also
Ans. 10-11.)
Claim 20
Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for the
patentability of claim 20 (App. Br. 6, 9) as for claim 1. We find these
arguments unpersuasive for the reasons set forth supra. (See also Ans. 10-
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
13
11). In addition, Appellant contends that Robarts does not disclose
“outputting at least one of an image or video clip related to the user context
along with the translated output data,” without any further explanation or
argument. (App. Br. 8-9.) The Examiner, however, identifies that Robarts
describes providing at least images, such as an appropriate map image, to a
user. (Ans. 8 (citing Robarts 19:45-69).) We agree with the Examiner and
find that Robarts teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art the
claimed outputting limitation.
Dependant Claim 6
Appellant contends that Potter and Robarts collectively do not teach
or suggest a system including “user interaction is via at least one of the user
and the indigenous people,” as recited in claim 6. (App. Br. 11.) However,
claim 6 merely requires the computer system to interact either with a user or
with indigenous people. (App. Br. 15.) As stated above, both Potter and
Robarts interact with a user and therefore either prior art reference meets this
claimed limitation. (Ans. 10; Robarts Abstract.) Accordingly, we reject the
Appellant’s argument and sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Dependant Claim 11
Appellant also argues that Potter and Robarts collectively fail to teach
or suggest “that the reasoning component employs a probabilistic and/or
statistical-based analysis to prognose or infer an action that the user desires
to be automatically performed,” as recited in claim 11. (App. Br. 11-12;
Reply Br. 13-14.) One of skill in the art would understand that a “statistical-
based analysis” would be any analysis based upon a collection of numerical
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
14
data. (See e.g., WEBSTER’S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY (1995) (defining
statistics as “a collection of numerical data”).) Here, Robarts teaches such
an analysis.
As identified by the Examiner, for example, Robarts describes:
A safety theme could begin recording all sensors and
attributes at high data rates if the system infers that I am having
a health crises (e.g., car is skidding at high speed or my pulse is
erratic). The system could then indicate to the user that a safety
issue has been determined, and alert emergency personnel and
family if attempts to get acknowledgement or correction from
the user is not received.
(Robarts, col. 43, ll. 45-52; see also Ans. 23-24.)
In other words, Robarts collects sensor data, regarding a pattern of
behavior of the user, and analyzes that data to infer or determine whether to
contact emergency personal automatically. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Robarts teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 11.
Accordingly, we reject the Appellant’s argument and sustain the rejection of
claim 11.
Remaining Dependant Claims
Because the Appellant relies on the same arguments presented for
independent claims 1, 16, and 20 for the remaining dependent claims (App.
Br. 12), we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2-5,
7-10, 12-15, and 17-19. (Ans. 5-15).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 103.
Appeal 2010-005323
Application 11/298,408
15
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
rwk
Webster's II
New College Dictionary
Houghton Mifflin Company
Boston. New York
Words are included in this Dictionary on the basis of their usage.
Words that are known to have current trademark registrations are
shown with an initial capital and are also identified as trademarks. No
investigation has been made of common-law trademark rights in any
word, because such investigation is impracticable. The inclusion of
any word in this Dictionary is not, however, an expression of the
Publisher's opinion as to whether or not it is subject to proprietary
rights. Indeed, no definition in this Dictionary is to be regarded as
affecting the validity of any trademark.
Copyright © 2001, 1999, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved.
No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and
recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without
the prior written permission of Houghton Mifflin Company unless such
copying is expressly permitted by federal copyright law. Address
inquiries to Reference Permissions, Houghton Mifflin Company, 222
Berkeley Street, Boston, MA 02116.
Illustrations azimuthal equidistant projection and sinusoidal projection
© 1986 by The American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.
ISBN 0-395-96214-5
ISBN 0-618.16903-l{paper-over-boards binding)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Webster's IT new college dictionary.
p. em.
ISBN 0·395-70869-9 lalk. paper)
1. English language - Dictionaries. 1. Webster's IT new Riverside
University dictionary
PE1628.w55164 1995
423-dc20 95·5833
CIP
For information about this and other Houghton Mifflin trade and refer
ence books and multimedia products, visit the Houghton Mifflin web
site on the World Wide Web at http://www.houghtonrnifflinbooks.com.
Printed in the United States
-----
stationary front • steak knife
10'8
...... , moved: FIXED. 2. Unchanging
-n., pI. -ries. stat.u·to·ry (sUch'a-tor'e, -tor'e) ad;. 1. Of or relatin
One that is stationary. ute. 2_ Enacted, regulated, or authorized by statute. ¥to a Ii".
stationary front n. A transition zone between two nearly station
ary air masses of different density.
stationary orbit n. Synchronous orbit.
stationary satellite n. An artificial satellite in a synchronous or
bit.
stationary wave n. A standing wave.
station break n. A pause in a broadcast program to allow for iden
tification of the network or station.
sta.tion.er (sta'sha-nar) n. [ME staciouner < Med. Lat. stationari
us, shopkeeper < statio, shop < Lat., station.] 1. A seller of stationery.
2. Obs. a. A publisher. b. A bookseller.
sta.tion·er.y (sta'sha-ni!r'e) n. 1. Writing paper and envelopes. 2.
Writing materials and office supplies.
station house n. -1. A police station. 2. A fire station.
sta.tion·mas·ter (sta'shan·mas'tar) n. An official in charge of a
railroad station.
Stations of the Cross pI.n. 1. A devotion that consists of med·
itation before each of the images or representations set up uSU. in a
church to co=emorate 14 events in the passion of Jesus. 2. The 14
images representing the events of the passion of Christ.
station wagon n. An automobile having an extended interior, third
seat or luggage platform, and a tailgate.
sta.tis.tic (sta-t'ls't'lk) n. [Back·formation < STATISTICS.] 1. A nu
merical datum. 2. An estimate of a parameter, as of the population
mean or variance, obtained from a sample. 3. A random variable that
takes on the characteristics of a statistic.
sta.tis.ti.cal (sta·t!s't'l·kal) ad;. Of, relating to, or using statistics
or the'principles of statistics. -sta.tis'ti.ca1.ly adv.
stat.is.ti.cian (sUt-l-stlsh'an) n. 1. A specialist in statistics. 2.
One who compiles statistical data.
sta·tis·tics (sta-t'ls'tiks) n. [G. Statistik, political science < NLat:
itatisticus, of state affairs < Lat. starus, state. -see STATE.] 1. (sing.
in number). The mathematics of the collection, organization, and in
terpretation of numerical data. 2. (pI. in number). A collection of nu
merical data.
stato- pre/. [< Gk. statos, standing, placed.] 1. Resting: remaining
2. Equilibrium: balance
. , stat.o.blast (stat' a-blast') n. An asexually produced encapsulated
bud of a freshwater bryozoan from which new individuals develop af
ter the parent colony has disintegrated.
stat.o.cyst (sUt'a-sist') n. A small organ of balance in many in
vertebrates, consisting of a fluid-filled sac containing statoliths that
help indicate position when the animal moves.
stat.o.lith (stAt'l-ith') n. A small movable concretion of calcium
carbonate found in statocysts.
sta.tor (sta'tar) n. [Lat., one that stands < status, p.part of stare, to
stand.] The stationary part of a machine, such as a motor, dynamo, or
turbine, about which a rO.tor turns.
stat.o.scope (stat'a-sk6p') n. 1. A barometer for recording small
variations in atmospheric pressure. 2. A device for indicating small
changes in an airplane's altitude.
stat.u.ar.y (stiich'oo-~r'e) n.,pI. -ies. [Partly < Lat. statuana, art
of making statues, and partiy < Lat. staruarius, sculptor, both < sta
tuarius, of a statue < statua, statue.] 1. Statues collectively. 2. A sculp
tor. 3. The art of making statues.
stat.ue (stach' 00) n. [ME < OFr. < Lat. statua < staruere, to set up.
-see STATITfE.] A form or likeness sculpted, modeled, carved, or cast
in material such as stone, clay, wood, or bronze.
stat.u.esque (stach'oo-~sk') ad;. Like a statue, esp. in size, grace,
or dignity: STATELY. -stat'u.esque'ly adv. .
stat.u.ette (sti!ch'oo-~t') n. A small statue.
stat.ure (sUch'ar) n. [ME < OFr. < Lat. statuIa < status, p.part. of
stare, to stand.] 1. The natural height of a human or animal body in an
upright position. 2. A level achieved: STATUS.
stat·us (sta'tas, stiit'as) n. [Lat., condition, p.part of stare, to stand.]
1. The legal character or condition of a person or thing 2. A stage of progress or development. 3. a. Relative position
in a ranked group or in a social system b. High relative position 4. A sta\e 0 af
fairs: SITUAnON.
sta·tus quo (sta'tas kw6', stat'as) n. [Lat., state in which.] The
existing condition: STATE OP AFFAIRS.
status symbol n. Something, such as a possession or an activity, by
which one's social or economic prestige is measured.
stat.u.ta.ble (stach'a-ta-bal) ad;.!. Enacted, regulated, or author
ized by statute : STATITfORY. 2. Legally punishabre : reCOgnized by
statute .
stat.ute (stiich'60t) n. [ME < OFr. estarut < LLat. starutum < Lat.,
staturus, p.part. of statuere, to set up < status, p.part of stare, to
stand.] 1. A law enaCted by the legislative assembly of a nation or
state. 2. A decree or edict. 3. An established law or rule, esp. of a cor
poration.
statute law n. A law established by legislative enactment.
statute mile n. MILE 1.
statute of limitations n. Law. A statute setting a time limit on
legal action in certain cases.
statutory offense n. A legal offense declared by statute
statutory rape n. Sexual relations With a person wh . b
reached the statutory age of consent. 0 as OO(
staunchI (stonch, stanch) also stanch (stanch stanch)
-est. [ME staunche, watertight < OFr. estancb~ < est a~ -er,
stanch. - see STANCH.] 1. Firm and steadfast: TRm. 2. Ha/nc I" (.
construction or constitution. usage: The adjective fann islllg aItf"'l
spelled staunch, but the verb form is more commonly spell~mrncm:l
-staunch'lyadv. -staunch'ness n. e 5(Jr.~:
staunch' (stonch, stanch) v. var. of STANCH'.
stau·ro.lite (stOr';)-ut') n. [Fr. < Gk. stauros, cross.] A b .
black mineral, chiefly FeAL,Si20 IO (OH)20 often with cros r~\'n.",.
grown crystals, occas. used as a gem. -stau'ro.lit'ic (-Ii:; 1"''''
stave (stav) n_ [Back-formation < staves, pI. of STAIF.] 1 A ( cj,
strip of wood forming part of the sides of a container such as n:r.:r.
or tub. 2. A rung of a ladder or chair. 3. A staff. 4. A'mUsical :(at~
A set of verses: STANZA. :-v. staved or stove (st6v), staV.i~ 1.
staves. - VI.. 1. To break 10 or puncture the staves of. 2. To b'e" &.
smash a hole 10. 3. To crush or smash IOward. - vi. To be or b,. '"
crushed in. - stave off. To keep or hold off. -cOlt<
staves (stavz) n. Val. pI. of STAFF' 1, 2, 4.
stave.s.a.cre (stivz' a'kar).~. [By folk ety. < ME staphisagre. :..,
staphis agna < Gk., wild raISIO.] 1. A larkspur, Delphinium st. "
agria of southern Europe, with greenish-white flowers. 2. The p:,~;;;;
OllS seeds of the stavesacre, formerly used externally as , para'I( ~ .
stayl (sta) v. stayed, stay.mg, stays. [ME steyen, to hair .,I'c'%
ester, to stoP. < Lat. stare, to stand_] -~. 1. To remain in a ,)VCI
place or condlhon 2. To sojourn as a guest or lodger 3. To stop mo~ : CEASE. 4. To wait: PAUSE. 5. To hod 'l
stay' (sta) VI. stayed, stay.mg, stays. [OFr. estayer, to Supp"rt .,
estaie, a support, of Germanic orig.] 1. To support or prop up 1. To
sustain mentally or spiritually. 3. !o rest or fix on for support. - n I,
A support: brace. 2. A strip of bone, plastic, or metal, used ro ,ull",
a garment. 3. stays. A corset.
stay' (sta) n. [ME < OE st - vt. stend.c4.
stead.ing, steads. To be of advantage to : BENEFIT.
stead.fast also sted.fast (stM'fast', -fast) ad;. [ME ",deIJIl'
OE stedef 4. Not easily eXClJeJ ar ~
5. Reliable: dependable. 6. Marked by "m~'
SOBER. - v. stead.ied, stead.y.ing, stead.ies. vt. a- v( Q
make or become steady. -n., pI. ·ies. Slang. The persouo", ~
regularly and exclusively. -stead'i.er n. -stead',·ly J,;.
-stead'i-ness n. Itt::
steady state n. A stable condition that does not chang• ObI'"/u!:f
dor in which change in one direction is continually balance Yt
in another. . rl ~
stead.y-state theory (stM'e-stat') n. A cosmolog(de~
that assumes that the large-scale view of the uruverse IS lDtb ~
of the position of the observer in space and time ~d that ~