Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim."
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Since APA fails to meet every limitation of
claim 1, APA does not anticipate claim 1 nor its dependents,
claims 2, 3, and 7/(1-3).
Regarding claim 4, appellant's sole argument is that
"identification of handwritten characters is displayed in the
second areas associated with the first areas in which the
characters are entered, simultaneously with data entry,
without having to initiate a separate procedure, as is the
case in connection with the apparatus of Fig. 21." However,
we first note that we find no limitation of display
simultaneous with data entry recited in the claim.
Nonetheless, as the examiner explains (Answer, page 6), as
each handwritten character is input and the recognized
character is output in a square B, the cursor is located at
the same square B. As admitted by appellant (Specification,
page 2, lines 16-20), portion D displays the character kind
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007