Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Nakatsuka.
Even though we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
additional reasons than that advanced by the Examiner, our
position is still based on the collective teachings of the
references applied in the final rejection, and does not
constitute a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d
491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d
455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
We discuss other claims which are discussed separately
and individually by Appellant.
Claim 3. Appellant argues [brief, page 10] that
Nakatsuka does not show a “handprint memory”, a “stroke
memory” and a “recognized character memory” as claimed in
claim 3. This is merely a conclusory statement.
Nevertheless, we note that Appellant is looking for an express
showing of each labeled element. Nakatsuka indeed shows a
memory area for storing library data for the recognition
apparatus (elements 8 and 9), a memory area coupled to a
collection processor (3) and recognition processor (3 and 7)
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007