Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
word, line, or paragraph in a manner analogous to selection in a typed-text
system [Wilcox, col. 2, lines 16-23]. In our view, the graphical objects shown in
Figs. 3, 8, and 9 of Wilcox reasonably comprise, among other things, in-line
words, paragraphs, sketches, margin notes, and connectors. Moreover, multiple
graphical objects are clustered based, at least in part, on distance between the
graphical objects [Wilcox, abstract and col. 2, lines 27-33]. Based on this
teaching along with the collective teachings of the other cited references, we
agree with the examiner that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to
classify the ink in the manner claimed to more accurately edit documents with
handwritten elements. The examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 9-13 and
22-26 is therefore sustained.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claim 30 as being
unpatentable over Morishita in view of Maxted and further in view of Huang. The
examiner indicates that although Morishita discloses a chain of strokes, the
reference does not associate a center of the chain of strokes with at least one
object as claimed. The examiner cites Huang as teaching a conformation
process that centers individual highlighting strokes on their associated text line.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to provide such a feature in Morishita’s
device to adapt the device to a particular user’s writing style [answer, page 9].
Appellant contends that Huang adds nothing pertinent to Morishita and the
references fail to teach or suggest the claimed features [brief, page 32].
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007