Appeal No. 1997-1413
Application 07/765,757
It is noted that we basically find Arifuku unnecessary
to support this rejection of the claims. The obviousness of
hand drawn input characters for which Arifuku was cited is
clearly taught by the writing pad of Johnston which was
obviously substituted for Ishii’s keyboard for reasons
discussed above. 3. The
rejection of
claims 1, 6,
17 and 40
based on the
teachings of
Hattori,
Johnston and
Arifuku.
This rejection is explained on pages 11-13 of the
answer and is essentially the same as the previous rejections
with Hattori taking the place of Sakurada or Ishii. Appellant
argues
that Hattori, like the other references, does not teach or
suggest a writing pad operable to accept a sketch drawn by a
user [brief, page 11].
We find that Hattori suffers the same deficiencies
noted above with respect to Sakurada. That is, there is no
suggestion in Hattori for replacing the disclosed keyboard
with a writing pad operable to accept a sketch drawn by a
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007