Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
have been reasonably combinable with Morishita essentially for the reasons
stated by the examiner. For the above reasons, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 14 is therefore sustained.
Regarding claim 15, our previous discussion regarding Morishita’s
disclosure of overlaid ink applies equally here and we incorporate that discussion
by reference.6 The examiner’s rejection of claim 15 is therefore sustained.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the examiner cites Morishita’s determination
of the ink’s width as “indicative” of determining the claimed distance to other
annotations as claimed [answer, page 7 and 13]. Regarding claims 4 and 17, the
examiner adds that Morishita’s width determination teaches determining the ratio
of the ink’s height to its width [answer, pages 7 and 14]. Appellants argue,
among other things, that Morishita does not disclose “other annotations,” let
alone determining the distance to such other annotations [brief, pages 15 and 16;
reply brief, page 3]. Appellants further argue that since Morishita fails to teach
determining ink height; therefore, the reference cannot teach determining the
claimed height-to-width ratio [brief, pages 16 and 17; reply brief, page 4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 16, and 17.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Morishita simply does not determine the electronic
ink’s distance to other annotations as appellants indicate. Merely measuring
width of electronic ink hardly suggests that other annotations exist at all, let alone
determining the distance to such other annotations as claimed. Regarding
6 See pages 5 and 6, supra, of this opinion.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007