Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to provide Crane’s step of rotating the handwritten
strokes in the normalization step to Sklarew’s pattern
recognition device [Id. at pages 6-7].
With respect to representative claim 1, appellant
argues that the collective teachings of Sklarew and Crane do
not suggest the normalizing step as specifically recited in
claim 1 [brief, pages 8-14]. We agree with appellant for
essentially the reasons argued. We have reviewed the applied
prior art including the specific sections cited by the
examiner and agree with appellant that there is no suggestion
in the applied prior art that an entered stroke should be
rotated before matching against a template of character parts.
Normalization of entered strokes for size and speed does not
suggest normalization by rotating the stroke in the manner
recited in claim 1. Likewise, the mere recognition of the
slope of a drawn stroke does not amount to a rotation of the
stroke before matching occurs. The examiner’s reliance on the
positioning of a character using the centroid in Sklarew
cannot reasonably be said to suggest that a stroke should be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007