Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
analyze those marks as taught by Endo. As far as this
reasoning goes, we have no problem with the combination. The
problem is that the claims require more than a mere analysis
of extracted hand drawn marks.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, that the set of
hand drawn marks includes “the command designator, a selection
designator and other hand drawn marks.” This set of hand
drawn marks is analyzed to recognize the hand drawn command
designator and then the set is analyzed to recognize the
presence of the
hand drawn selection designator, whose presence indicates the
selection of the action associated with the command
designator.
Appellant argues that in Endo, analysis is performed on
all hand drawn marks and not on merely a subset of those
marks, i.e., only on the command designator and the selection
designator. This argument seems to be borne out by reference
to Endo’s Figure 1 which shows that every tablet input, i.e.,
every hand drawn mark, is subject to pattern recognition at
box 38. Of course, if every hand drawn mark in Endo
constituted only command designators and selection
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007