Appeal No. 97-0642
Application 08/242,318
gesture (a double tap of the stylus on the screen) within a
bounding box of the word object (col. 7, lines 62-65)). The
rejection of claim 30 is sustained.
Claims 31-37
Claim 31 is identical to claim 11 except that it adds the
phrase "wherein the first and second text domains specify
words in different alphabets." Horodeck discloses conversion
of text domains which specify words in different alphabets,
but does not disclose a stylus-based computer system with
handwritten character input and conversion in response to a
conversion gesture. In our opinion, it would have been
obvious to recognize handwritten characters and convert them
from one text domain to a different text domain in the
pen-based computer of Sklarew for the reasons stated in
connection with claim 24. The "text extension system for
converting displayed characters of the first text domain to
characters of the second text domain" is met by the conversion
software in Horodeck. In our opinion, the combination
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that "Horodeck merely teach[es]
conversions between one set of text domains" (Br23) and that
- 29 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007