Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
Because the rejection of claim 2 is not sustained, the rejection
of claim 3 cannot be sustained.
In any event, the examiner has not established that the
feature added by claim 3 is either shown or suggested by the
disclosure of Sklarew. Claim 3 recites that a candidate
character display area associated with one of said input
character display area is displayed in a window which overlies
another input character display area or areas. Sklarew discloses
a window overlay for inserting text at any position identified on
the display. The text for insertion is original input data the
same as the data which was already there. Sklarew would not have
reasonably suggested how to position a candidate character
display area which is associated with a particular input
character display area, in the manner as is required by claim 3.
The rejection of claim 5 over
Togawa, Aguro, Hernandez and Yoshikawa
Claim 5 depends from claim 2. Yoshikawa was applied by the
examiner for the additional limitation recited in claim 5.
Because the rejection of claim 2 is not sustained, the rejection
of claim 5 cannot be sustained.
In any event, the examiner has not sufficiently explained
how the added features of claim 5 have been met or reasonably
suggested by Yoshikawa. Claim 5 requires more than mere generic
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007