Ex Parte Van Gestel et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2007-0608                                                                           
               Application 09/738,647                                                                     
               The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:                                     
               A.  Claims 1, 6 and 8 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  § 103(a)                  
               as being unpatentable over Shojima.                                                        
               B.    Claims 31 through 5 and 13 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
               § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shojima and Cok.                                       
                     Appellants contend2 that Shojima, taken alone or in combination with                 
               Cok, does not render claims 1, 4 through 6 and 9 through 12 unaptentable.                  
               Particularly, Appellants contend that Shojima does not fairly teach or                     
               suggest selecting a font by comparing a user’s handwritten characters to                   
               characters of a plurality of fonts to determine a font for displaying the user’s           
               recognized characters, as recited in representative claim 1.  (Br. 6 and 7;                
               Reply Br. 2).  The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Shojima teaches the                
               cited limitations of representative claim 1 as comparing an input handwritten              
               character data with registered data dictionary to recognize a most similar                 
               pattern, as well as to select and display a font corresponding to the                      
               recognized character pattern.  (Answer 3 and 7).  The Examiner therefore                   
               concludes that Shojima renders representative claim 1 unpatentable.                        
               Appellants further contend that Shojima, taken alone or in combination with                
               Cok, does not render claims 3, 8 and 13 through 16 unpatentable since it                   
               does not teach a creation unit for creating a new font on the basis of the                 
               plurality of handwritten characters.  (Br. 8).  In response, the Examiner                  
                                                                                                         
               1 We note that claim 3 improperly depends upon higher numbered claim 13.                   
               2 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in                
               the Appeal and Reply Briefs.  Arguments that Appellants could have made                    
               but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived.  See 37                
               C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).  See also In re Watts, 354                
               F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                    
                                                    3                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013