Ex parte NAGAISHI - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-3062                                                        
          Application 08/425,319                                                      


          characters are segmented from                                               


          character data therefrom and the result of the segmentation                 
          are used for character recognition.                                         
               Independent claim 7 is reproduced as follows:                          
               7.   An apparatus for segmenting a desired character from              
          an array of characters, comprising:                                         
               an input receiving an array of characters represented as               
          electronic data;                                                            
               a computer configured to calculate a field of induction                
          at points within a proximity of said array of characters and                
          for determining a character region of each character by using               
          fields of induction for segmenting a character from the array               
          of characters; and                                                          
               an output containing electronic data representing                      
          individual characters from said array of characters.                        
               The Examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Kubota, Tadashi et al., "Handwritten Character Recognition                  
          Using Transformation by Field", Systems, Computers, Controls,               
          vol. 3, No. 3, pgs. 1-9 (May 1972).                                         
               Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                    
          unpatentable over Kubota.                                                   
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the               
          Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the                 
          respective details thereof.                                                 

                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007