Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
most frequently used tutorial control function is listed first
and the function which is seldomly used is listed last. In
column 5, lines 19-24, it is stated:
EXAMPLES: By clicking on a pull-down menu item,
users could rate how often they need to use that menu
choice. A high rating would cause the menu to
rearrange itself so that it appears first on the pull-
down menu. A lower rating would cause the item to
appear later in the menu list.
The appellants correctly state that it is not seen why one
of ordinary skill in the art would combine Kaplan’s tutorial
device with the remaining references. That Kaplan teaches a
hierarchy of display based on the anticipated frequency of use of
tutorial functions such as page forward, page backward, more
information, undo, delete, and quit, would not have reasonably
suggested a hierarchy of display of candidate characters based on
similarity in appearance with respect to inputted handwritten
characters. Extending Kaplan’s ideas to cover character
recognition systems such that candidate characters are listed in
order of similarity to the inscribed handwritten character
involves use of improper hindsight in light of the appellants’
own specification. The connection between anticipated frequency
of use and similarity in appearance to input character is too far
stretched and remote to support a conclusion of obviousness.
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007