Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
inherently be edited via a layout engine – a feature that is ostensibly “inherently
available in any computer” [answer, page 15].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 8. In short, we find
the examiner’s arguments merely speculative and unpersuasive. Even assuming
that (1) Morishita necessarily has a text editor, and (2) this inherent text editor
somehow functions as a layout engine as claimed, the examiner has simply not
shown how the text editor (or any other component of Morishita) re-flows the
displayed information, yet maintains the relationship of the electronic ink to the
object(s) despite re-flow as claimed. Even if the text within the curved or
rectangular search region of Figs. 44A and 44B were edited as the examiner
seems to suggest, we fail to see how Morishita’s system necessarily accounts for
such changes by altering the relationship between the search region and the
edited text (i.e., so that the original ink-to-object relationship is maintained). For
at least the above reasons, Morishita does not disclose all limitations of claim 8.
Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of that claim.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, appellants argue that Morishita does not
disclose a processor that (1) classifies electronic ink and associates electronic
ink with the content; (2) transforms the electronic ink; and (3) outputs the
transformed electronic ink [brief, page 30]. The examiner essentially reiterates
the arguments made with respect to claim 2, but adds that the limitation calling
for outputting transformed electronic ink is fully met by Morishita’s displaying the
ink on a display device [answer, page 16].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007