Appeal No. 97-0642
Application 08/242,318
Appellant has failed to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 27. The rejection of
claim 27 is sustained.
Issue F: Claims 28-37
Claims 28 and 29
Claims 28 and 29 are similar to claims 8 and 9. We refer
to the discussion of claims 8 and 9. Both Horodeck and Capps
disclose displaying a list of candidate text strings. It
would have been obvious to replace the selected text with a
candidate text string using a correction gesture in view of
the teachings of Capps. Thus, a prima facie case of
obviousness is established with respect to claims 28 and 29.
We disagree with Appellant's argument that Horodeck does
not suggest ranking (Br24). Appellant has failed to rebut the
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 28 and
29. The rejection of claims 28 and 29 is sustained.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is similar to claim 10. The separate
patentability of claim 30 has not been argued; thus, claim 30
falls with claim 24. As noted with respect to claim 10, Capps
teaches initiating a correction function using a conversion
- 28 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007