Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 9, 14 and
17 cannot be sustained.
Claim 15 does not require that the candidate characters be
displayed such that the one most similar to the inscribed
character is placed closest to the inscribed character. In that
connection, claim 15 is like independent claims 1, 6 and 10.
Thus, although the rejection of claim 15 is nominally based on
Togawa, Aguro, Hernandez and Kaplan, Kaplan has no application in
the rejection and the rejection is essentially based solely on
Togawa, Aguro and Hernandez. The appellants’ arguments with
regard to claim 15 are the same as those set forth in connection
with claims 1, 6 and 10. For reasons the same as those already
discussed above in the context of claims 1, 6 and 10, which have
been rejected over Togawa, Aguro and Hernandez, the appellants’
arguments are rejected in the context of claim 15 as well.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 is sustained. Also,
because the appellants have grouped claim 16 together with claim
15 (Br. at 14), the rejection of claim 16 is also sustained.
The rejection of claim 3 over
Togawa, Aguro, Hernandez and Sklarew
Claim 3 depends from claim 2. Sklarew was applied by the
examiner for the additional limitation recited in claim 3.
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007