Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 30
Application No. 08/289,134
reference, however, does not support the allegation.
Specifically, Shojima omits a Figure 39. Although Agulnick
includes a Figure 39, the Figure merely shows "an object being
dragged." Col. 5, l. 59. There is no suggestion of detecting
a number of loops defined by handwriting.
In view of this deficiency, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would have suggested the
limitations of "said set of one or more characteristics of
said input handwriting comprises a number of loops defined by
said handwriting." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claim 17 as obvious over Capps in view of Shojima further in
view of Agulnick.
Our affirmance are based only on the arguments made in
the briefs. Arguments not made therein are not before us, are
not at issue, and are considered waived.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 12, 13, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Capps in view of Shojima
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007