Not quite, I think. The patent describes a method of using a "created
international language" as an intermediate pathway in translation.
use of a created natural language as an interlingua in machine
translation. In other words, I don't think the patent applicant was
denying that interlingua methods existed, or that a human language had
been used as interlingua, but that using a "created" human language
has benefits over using a natural language as an interlingua.
To get a patent you have to be able to show that your invention has
"technical effect". For instance, finding a more efficient way of
process data, so that processing is quicker, or needs less memory,
or less space on disk, would probably satisfy this requirement.
In this case, it would appear that the justification being given is
that using a created natural language rather than a natural natural
language as an interlingua results in certain efficiencies and
simplifications because of its simplified and regular grammar. As
far as I can make out, the crucial sentences in the patent in this
respect are these:
> It [Esperanto] contains a compressed vocabulary (roughly one-tenth
> the number of words as English) and a completely simplified and
> regular grammar. This eliminates the need for many complex
> mathematical statements to account for the grammatical differences
> between existing national languages.
To undermine the patent using the argument that the idea of using an
interlingua was known, I think you would have to show either that there
is no advantage of using created human languages over natural languages
as an interlingua, or that the idea that it would be advantageous to do
so was known, or that it was obvious. You could construct a defence
by "mosaicing" two pieces of prior art (namely, (1) that natural
languages
had already been used as interlinguae, and (2) that semantic/logical
languages, with a "simplified and regular grammar" were already in use
and known about) to show that the idea of using a simplified human
language was obvious in the light of (1) and (2), but you have to be
confident that the judge won't interpret the mosaicing as non-obvious,
ie. that the putting together of (1) and (2) to get the idea
in the patent isn't interpreted as an inventive step in itself.
By the way, someone earlier suggested that this patent covered the use
of Esperanto in general. Actually, it only covers its use as an
interlingua in machine translation. By analogy, a patent for the
ring-pull as a way of opening drinks cans couldn't stop you from using
aluminium rings for other purposes, just as part of the ring-pull
mechanism. Using Esperanto as it was originally intended is a mental
act, which is specifically excluded from patentability.
Bill
-- Bill Imlah imlah@cre.canon.co.uk
Canon Research Centre Europe, 20 Alan Turing Rd, Guildford,
Surrey, GU2 5YF, UK. http://www.cre.canon.co.uk/
voice: +44-1483-448844 fax: +44-1483-448845