Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
3]. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 18 and
19.
Claim 12. This claim additionally calls for a “stroke
memory” coupled to the collection processor and to the
recognition processor and a “recognized character memory”
coupled to the recognition processor. Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments [brief, page 11], we find that Nakatsuka does
disclose a stroke memory and a recognition memory as explained
in our discussion above in regard to claim 11. The term
“coupled to” in this claim could be interpreted to meet the
claimed connections by Nakatsuka in our discussion of claim
11. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Rejection of Claims 20 and 21 over Nakatsuka and Fujimoto
This rejection has not been specifically argued by
Appellant. Appellant states that “whether or not Fujimoto
discloses cleaning the handprint data into vector stroke data
... is of no moment.” [Brief, page 9]. Therefore, we do not
discuss this rejection in any depth, except to note that
Fujimoto does indeed show the cleaning and thinning of the raw
handwritten data into vector stroke data as suggested by the
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007