Appeal No. 97-0642
Application 08/242,318
case and the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 16-18 is
sustained.4
Claim 10
The separate patentability of claim 10 has not been
argued. Thus, claim 10 falls with claim 1. We note, however,
that Capps teaches initiating a correction function using a
conversion gesture (a double tap of the stylus on the screen)
within a bounding box of the word object (col. 7,
lines 62-65)). The rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
Issue D: Claims 21-23
The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 21. As discussed in
connection with claim 1, we find no motivation in the record
established by the Examiner to combine the automatic symbology
conversion system of Kato with a pen-based handwriting
recognition device as taught in Sklarew. Capps discloses a
Since claim 7 has not been rejected over the4
combination including Capps, we have the somewhat unusual
circumstance of the rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9
being affirmed (with an additional reference) and the
rejection of the parent claim 7 being reversed.
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007