Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
claims 4 and 17, while Morishita measures the width of the ink, the reference
simply fails to teach or suggest determining a ratio of the ink’s height to its width.
Moreover, Maxted fails to cure these deficiencies since the reference does not
teach nor suggest the claimed distance or ratio determinations. Since neither
Morishita nor Maxted fairly teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 3, 4, 16,
and 17, the examiner’s rejection of these claims is therefore reversed.
We will, however, sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, and
19. As we discussed previously, the claims are fully met by Morishita’s ink-based
search regions in Figs. 44A and 44B that are “anchored” to displayed objects and
linked to displayed information. Our previous discussion of this embodiment of
Morishita applies equally here and we incorporate that discussion by reference.7
Regarding claims 6 and 19, we add that the data link that is established between
the region defined by the electronic ink and at least the information storing
section to facilitate searching involves accessing memory as the examiner
indicates [see answer, page 7]. We find this interpretation would
have reasonably suggested anchoring the ink to a file position as claimed. The
examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 is therefore
sustained.
Likewise, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 20 essentially
for the reasons previously discussed with respect to the limitations of claim 7.
7 See pages 6 and 7, supra, of this opinion.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007