Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
In the specification at page 14, it is stated:
The character recognition portion 5 examines the
character pattern 19 to recognize it as a character,
and operates to extract a plurality of, five in this
case, candidate characters in the order of degree of
similarity. . . .
The above-quoted disclosure reveals that the appellants were
in possession of the idea of comparing the sensed input signal
with stored potential character signals to derive plural
candidate characters. This disclosure adequately supports the
term comparator as broadly recited in the appellants’ claims.
That the specification refers to a "character recognition
portion" rather than a "comparator" does not establish lack of
written description for a comparator. It is implicit that the
character recognition portion 5 includes such a comparator.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 10-19 as
being based on an unenabling disclosure cannot be sustained.
Moreover, even if the rejection had been one for lack of written
description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, it also
cannot be sustained.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-13
and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art
Our opinion is based solely on the arguments raised by the
appellants in their briefs. We do not address and offer no
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007