Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 12
Application No. 08/289,134
between the features of the coordinate data and the data in
the gesture database.
Capps would have suggested the limitations. The
reference defines a "gesture" to include a "recognizable
stroke on the screen 52." Col. 7, ll. 50-53. According to
this definition, the ink object I, which Figure 4a shows to be
the handwritten word "more," is a gesture. As aforementioned,
comparison of the ink object against a gesture database,
yields recognition as the the word object W, which Figure 4b
shows to be the typewritten word "more." We are persuaded
that these teaching would have suggested the limitations of
"means for determining that said operation is a gesture when
said feature portion of said coordinate data is similar to the
feature portion of said gesture based on a comparison with a
predetermined level of similarity ...."
Third, the appellants argue, "Capps cannot teach ... 'in
response to said feature portion of said coordinate data, a
preselected command is performed to change a display condition
of said line segment or said character.'" (Appeal Br. at 11.)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007