Appeal No. 2006-2118 Page 4
Application No. 10/022,754
We consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 as being
anticipated by Grover. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection
have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
consider independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant notes that claims 1 and 7 call for a second data input system
used in disambiguation that is a speech recognition input system, a handwriting
input recognition system, or a stylus input system [brief, page 5]. Appellant
argues that Grover contains no such disclosure or suggestion [id.].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 5]. The examiner notes that
Grover teaches a first data input system embodied as a virtual keypad with nine
data keys, with each key configured to associate a specific keystroke with a
plurality of graphical characters (col. 1, lines 46-47, col. 3, lines 66-67 and col. 4,
lines 34-37, see also fig. 1) [id., emphasis added]. The examiner further notes
that Grover teaches a second data input system embodied as system level keys
(e.g. see select key 104 shown in fig. 1; col. 4, lines 6-8) used to move the cursor
or highlight bar within the list menu of candidate words discerned from the first
data input system (col. 3, lines 66 through col. 4, line 9) [id.]. The examiner
notes that Grover explicitly teaches that candidate words can be selected with
other input devices such as a light pen, which the examiner argues is a type of
stylus input system [id.; see Grover, col. 9, lines 18-25]. The examiner reasons
that because a pen is a stylus, the light pen disclosed by Grover is a “stylus input
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007