Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
designators, appellant’s argument would fail.
In any event, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because we find no
evidence in Bloomberg or Endo that those references
contemplate distinguishing a command designator and a
selection designator from other hand drawn marks, wherein the
presence of the selection designator indicates selection of
the action associated with the command designator. The
examiner cites column 4, lines 24-67, of Endo for a showing of
distinguishing a command designator from other hand drawn
marks. That portion of Endo describes various inputs,
including, for example, “X,” “/,” and closed parentheses,
representative of the commands “erase,”
“cut,” and “wrap,” respectively.
While we agree that Endo certainly discloses hand drawn
commands indicative of such commands as “erase,” “cut,” and
“wrap,” and that such commands cause the commanded action, it
is unclear in Endo where there are command designators
distinguished from selection designators such that the command
designators indicate an action to be taken and the presence of
a selection designator indicates selection of that action.
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007