Appeal No. 1998-3062
Application 08/425,319
On pages 10 and 11, Appellant argues that Kubota does not
segment a character. Appellant further argues that Kubota
does not utilize a field of induction as defined by
Appellant's specification and as claimed. In particular
Appellant points out that independent claim 7 requires "an
apparatus for segmenting a
desired character from an array of characters, comprising ...
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 said character by using
fields of induction for segmenting a character from the array
of characters." On page 12 of the brief, Appellant also
points out that independent claim 9 requires "an apparatus for
character recognition with segments a desired character from
an array of characters and which recognizes the segmented
character, comprising ... 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 using fields of induction for segmenting a character
from the array of characters." On pages 12 and 13 Appellant
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007