Appeal No. 2006-1766
Application No. 09/773,090
108. Markable surface 150 is described as a sheet or pad 160 of
paper (see column 7, lines 24-26). Since Karidis distinguishes
between a “display” and “paper,” it is clear to us that paper
markable surface 150 of Karidis cannot be a display screen, as
claimed. Text may be displayed on a pad of paper and a pencil or
pen may be a “manual actuator” for interacting with text on that
paper, but such an analogy breaks down when the claimed
requirement of enabling text to be imported from one unit
directly into another unit is taken into account. Now one might
say that Kashiwagi teaches this limitation. However, even if
Kashiwagi discloses everything the examiner alleges, it would not
seem apparent to the skilled artisan, without some suggestion in
the references, why a pad of paper should be replaced by a
display screen which enables text to be imported from one unit to
another.
With regard to Kashiwagi and the examiner’s apparent
reliance on the tablet 66 of Kashiwagi as one unit or screen that
the electronic memo (text) is written on, we find no indication
in Kashiwagi that this tablet 66 is a unit for displaying a
document. Rather, the tablet appears to be something a memo is
written on, as an input device (see column 11, line 24 of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007