Appeal No. 2000-0723
Application 08/852,415
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5
based on Hatakenaka and Yamauchi and the rejection of claim 6
based on Hatakenaka, Yamauchi and Yoshio. These claims stand
or fall together as a single group [brief, page 6]. With
respect to representative, independent claim 1, the examiner
finds that Hatakenaka teaches all the features of claim 1
except for the script information identifying the encoding
method in a tabular format. The examiner cites Yamauchi as
teaching this feature. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to provide script information as
taught by Yamauchi in the system of Hatakenaka [answer, pages
4-6].
Appellants argue that the portion of Yamauchi relied
on by the examiner fails to support the examiner’s findings.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007