Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
scaling mentioned requires the applicant’s offset data.
It turns out that the second paragraph of the above-quoted text actually refers to Ohno, not
Uehara. The quoted text appears in Ohno, not Uehara. Column 2, lines 49-53 of Ohno, not Uehara,
concerns the subject matter in discussion.
Thus, the examiner’s view with regard to how Uehara applies to the rejected claims on appeal
is limited to the single sentence "[t]he applicant’s skeleton patterns reads on Uehara ‘skeleton lines’
mentioned in the abstract." Ohno, on the other hand, is not without disclosure of skeleton patterns in
the form of stroke baselines. Thus, as applied by the examiner, Uehara does not add anything
meaningful to Ohno. Accordingly, we will focus on and further examine only the disclosure of Ohno.
The appellants correctly point out (Br. at 18) that in Ohno the start point of each partial pattern
is represented by an absolute position in a character coordinate system and the start point of each basic
pattern is represented by a relative position from the origin point of the partial pattern. The appellants
argue that Ohno’s system is contrary to the claimed invention wherein the origin of each partial pattern
is set in a coordinate system whose size is 1/n that of the character coordinate system and wherein the
absolute start position of each basic pattern is computed by multiplying the origin position by "n" and
adding to that product the start point of the basic pattern.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007