Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
area. In response, the examiner does not address the issue
raised by the appellants, but merely reiterate the position that
the abutting relationship would have been obvious (answer at 11,
lines 7-18). It appears that Aguro would not have reasonably
suggested the one-to-one fixed relationship between candidate
character display areas and input character display areas. In
Aguro, the graphical objects can be anywhere on the screen and
the same is true for its editing function menu.
Because the examiner has not reasonably explained his
position concerning the claimed features of claim 2, the
rejection of claim 2 cannot be sustained. Claim 4 depends from
claim 2 and therefore the rejection of claim 4 also cannot be
sustained.
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites that the first
candidate character is not displayed in the candidate character
display area. It is true that none of the applied references
specifically teaches this feature. However, we agree with the
examiner that this aspect of the claimed invention would have
been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. Because the
first candidate character is already displayed in the position
corresponding to the position of the inscribed input character,
as is evidently already taught by Aguro, one with ordinary skill
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007