Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. Because the
appellants have grouped claims 12 and 13 together with claim 11,
we also sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 13.
The rejection of claims 9, 14, and 15-17
as being unpatentable over Togawa, Aguro,
Hernandez and Kaplan under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and further requires that the
candidate character most similar to the inscribed character being
displayed closer to the inscribed character than any of the other
candidate characters. Claim 14 depends from claim 10 and further
requires that the candidate character most similar to the
inscribed character being displayed closer to the inscribed
character than any of the other candidate characters. Claim 17
depends from claim 15 and further requires that the candidate
character most similar to the inscribed character being displayed
closer to the inscribed character than any of the other candidate
characters. For this feature of the claimed invention, the
examiner relied on Kaplan. However, the reliance is misplaced.
Kaplan discloses a tutorial device wherein tutorial data is
displayed in a first region and a menu of various executable
tutorial control functions is displayed in a second region. In
one of Kaplan’s disclosed embodiments, it is indicated that the
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007