Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 24
Application No. 08/289,134
execution of said command being temporarily stopped until a
release operation is performed." Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claim 10 as obvious over Capps in view of Shojima
further in view of Agulnick. Next, we address claim 11.
Claim 11
The appellants argue that the prior art references fail
to teach or suggest the features of claim 11. (Appeal Br. at
15-16.) Claim 11 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a plurality of characters are displayed on said
display, and said operation serves to enter a straight line
with a predetermined relationship with respect to said at
least two characters, said command aligning said at least two
characters for representation." Accordingly, the limitations
require aligning characters.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. He admits, "CAPPS is silent
about aligning at least two characters with straight line
...." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The examiner fails to
allege, let alone show, that Shojima cures this deficiency.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007