Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
opinion on arguments which could have been raised but were not
set forth in the briefs.
With respect to independent claims 1, 10 and 15, the
appellants argue that the applied prior art nowhere suggests
placing the candidate character display area "to abut" the input
character display area (Br. at 7, line 5). The appellants argue
that the abutting feature is not disclosed in any of the
references (Br. at 8, lines 8-10). Also, the appellants state
that the prior art requires an operator to move a stylus a
substantial distance from the region where the candidate
character was inscribed to a region that is removed from the
inscribed region (Br. at 7, lines 15-17). According to the
appellants, the abutting feature provides character recognition
without requiring an operator to frequently turn his eyes and
frequently move the position of a stylus (Br. at 7, lines 22-23).
Also according to the appellants, the abutting feature would
require less space on the display device for the candidate
display area (Br. at 8, lines 1-3).
It is true that none of Togawa, Aguro, and Hernandez
expressly discloses displaying candidate characters in a display
area abutting that area for displaying the inscribed character.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007