Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
Morishita is associated with objects of the displayed image (i.e., the electronic ink
has a distinct spatial relationship to the underlying objects). Moreover, the
electronic ink is “overlaid” onto the image to remove desired portions thereof.
Although we do not agree with the examiner’s contention that Morishita’s
embedding of a writing section using a special ink in the information writing
section 11 meets the claimed embedded ink limitation [see Morishita, col. 30, line
64 – col. 31, line 10], the claim nevertheless recites embedded and overlaid ink
in the alternative.2 Since we find that Morishita reasonably discloses overlaid
ink, that alternative is fully met. For the above reasons, all limitations of claim 2
are fully met by Morishita, and the examiner’s anticipation rejection will therefore
be sustained.
Regarding claim 7, appellants argue that Morishita does not disclose
anchoring the electronic ink to the at least one object by adding a link at or near
the object pointing to the electronic ink as claimed [brief, pages 19 and 20]. The
examiner argues that the limitation is met by Morishita in Fig. 44A since the
electronic ink in that figure is “anchored” to the circled written image. The
examiner further notes that Morishita’s link to a search region fully meets the
claimed added link [answer, pages 7 and 14].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Morishita enables the
user to (1) identify certain writing content within a desired region, and (2) search
the identified content from the information storing section 13. In Fig. 44A, for
2 Claim 2 recites, in pertinent part, “classifying…said electronic ink as one of embedded and
overlaid ink” [emphasis added].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007