Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
The appellants argue that Hernandez’s editing menu has
nothing to do with hand-written input character recognition and
thus its teachings about where to place the editing menu for
graphical objects are not applicable to character recognition
systems such as that disclosed in Togawa or Aguro (Br. page 9,
line 21 to page 10, line 5). The appellants further argue that
Hernandez teaches only the placing of the menu at where the
cursor is and not the "abutting" relationship called for by the
claims (Br. at 10, lines 7-12).
In our view, both of the appellants’ arguments are misplaced
and without merit. First, it should be noted that a reference
must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology
and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing
and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
474 U.S. 843 (1985). A reference must be evaluated for all its
teachings and is not limited to its specific embodiments. In re
Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 661, 193 USPQ 12, 17 (CCPA 1977); In re Snow,
471 F.2d 1400, 1403, 176 USPQ 328, 329 (CCPA 1973). The teaching
value of Hernandez to one with ordinary skill in the art is much
more expansive than the appellants realize. A reasonable reading
of Hernandez by one with ordinary skill in the art would convey
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007