Appeal 2006-2932
Application 10/042,192
respect then, Watanabe is merely cumulative to what has already been taught
in Peng.
As to the first stated rejection, Appellants’ arguments in the principal
Brief on appeal urged that Peng and Watanabe do not teach or suggest all of
the features of the claimed invention as topic number 1 at page 5 and alleges
that there is no proper motivation to combine Peng and Watanabe in topic 2
at page 7. We strongly disagree with these views in part because of what we
have already found to have been taught in Peng as just noted.
The focus of Appellants’ arguments begins with the position at page 5
that Peng does not relate to plural languages. It appears to us from our
review of Peng that the artisan would consider the various fonts as different
languages. The initial showing in figure 1 and the paragraph bridging
columns 3 and 4 of Peng were relied upon by the Examiner in the Statement
of the Rejection and reemphasized in the Answer in the Responsive
Argument portion of it at pages 11 and 12. There is no corresponding
additional complaint in the Reply Brief as to this feature. Indeed, figure 1
utilizes various diamond-shape boxes, which are conventional in the
software programming arts, to represent decision blocks which implicitly
include compare or matching operations. Thus, the characterization in the
text of the noted paragraph of “determining” implicitly teaches compare and
matching features of the evaluating clause argued by Appellants at pages 6
through 8 of the principal Brief and reargued beginning at page 2 of the
Reply Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013