Appeal 2007-0608
Application 09/738,647
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS-NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires a selection unit for
selecting a display font from among a plurality of fonts based on the
comparison of one or more of the plurality of handwritten characters with
one or more corresponding characters in each of the plurality of fonts. As
detailed in the findings of fact section above, we have found that Shojima
discloses selecting and displaying from among a plurality of fonts a font
having characters that correspond to the characters of a handwritten input
sample. (finding of fact 9). We have also found that Shojima teaches that
the selection and display of the font is based upon a match that results from
comparing the font characters with the handwritten sample characters.
(findings of fact 9 and 10). In light of these findings, it is our view that
Shojima teaches the limitation of selecting and displaying a font based on
the character comparison, as recited in claim 1. It follows that the Examiner
did not err in rejecting representative claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Shojima. It follows for the same reasons that the Examiner did not err in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013