Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of clam 30. We agree with the
examiner that the claimed association step does not preclude the conformation
process of Huang. In short, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would not
provide such a conformation process that centers individual strokes on their
associated text line in the system of Morishita and Maxted essentially for the
reasons stated by the examiner. Moreover, the examiner’s position has not been
persuasively rebutted. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 30 will be
sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Also, we have not sustained the
examiner's prior art rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 16, and 17. We have, however,
sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-15, and 18-30.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-30 is affirmed-in-part.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007