Appeal No. 97-0642
Application 08/242,318
invention" (Br16) because a "text domain" is a group of
textual elements associated with a single language. We
disagree with this narrow interpretation of what constitutes a
"text domain" for the reasons discussed at the beginning of
this subsection.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine
the respective teachings because Sklarew can access only a
single text domain at one time (Br14). As discussed, we agree
that the Examiner has failed to establish motivation to
combine by a showing of facts in the references. However, we
disagree with the argument that Sklarew involves only a single
text domain for the reasons discussed at the beginning of this
subsection.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant has failed to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 1. The rejection of claims 1-6 is sustained.
Claim 7
Appellant argues that neither Sklarew nor Kato discloses
identifying multiple potential text conversion results and
then ranking them (Br16-17). The Examiner finds that
searching for a minimum difference for recognition of the font
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007