Appeal No. 1998-0643
Application 08/196,028
is argued that the claims expressly require a word object to
include multiple symbols or components (Br19). It is argued
that there is no teaching that Tanaka would operate in the
same manner if the symbols were characters connected together
to form word objects (Br19) and that it is hindsight to apply
Tanaka to merged characters so as to circumscribe an entire
merged area (Br20).
The Examiner's position is that it would have been
obvious to apply the method of Tanaka, which draws boxes
around characters separated by spaces, to Bloomberg where
there are merged symbols (EA6). The Examiner previously
stated (Paper No. 12, p. 4-5): "(I) the rationale for the
rejection is that although Tanaka teaches boxing individual
characters from connected symbols, the process would operate
in the same manner if the symbols were character fragments
connected to form character objects, or if the symbols were
characters connected to form word objects, and (II) in the
case where a word object is a single character such as 'a' or
'I' or some other symbol, the claimed invention operates on
characters."
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007