Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
character and the candidate characters simultaneously, without
movement of his eyes and enables minimum pen movement.
Evidently, this is the same argument as that set forth by the
appellants with respect to the independent claims 1, 6 and 10.
Since the rejection of claims 1, 6 and 10 is sustained, the
rejection of claim 7 will also be sustained.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites that the
device responds to the sensor to display the inscribed character
on the second region of the display and replace the inscribed
character on the second region of the display with the selected
character. The appellants argue (Br. at 13, lines 14-17) that
claim 11 more specifically requires the inscribed character to be
replaced by the selected character, which is not shown or
suggested by the prior art. The argument is rejected.
In column 5, lines 19-28 of Togawa, it is disclosed that as
the hand-written character is inputted the information for the
locus of the input pen is simultaneously displayed and outputted.
Thereafter, according to column 5, lines 38-40 of Togawa, the
result recognized by the recognizing unit 14 is displayed instead
of the handwritten character. This description would have
reasonably suggested the feature of claim 11, i.e., the replacing
of the inscribed character with the selected character.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007