Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
rotated as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1-6 and 19-25.
With respect to representative claim 7, appellant
argues that there is no suggestion in the teachings of Sklarew
and Crane
to rotate a stroke about a stroke center until at least one of
the start point or stop point aligns with a vertical axis
[brief, pages 14-15]. The examiner asserts that Sklarew meets
the vertical axis limitation. In our view, the rejection of
claim 7 fails for the same reasons we considered in the
rejection of claim 1. The examiner’s reading of the applied
prior art simply is not supported by those documents.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 and
13-18.
With respect to representative claim 29, appellant
argues that there is no suggestion in the teachings of Sklarew
and Crane to rotate a stroke until the line between two of the
stroke’s most widely spaced points, one of which represents
one of the stroke’s endpoints, aligns with a predefined axis
as recited in claim 29 [brief, page 16]. The examiner asserts
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007