Appeal 2006-2932
Application 10/042,192
Additionally, this portion of Peng as relied upon by the Examiner does
indicate that there are languages that are either taught or otherwise
contemplated with respect to Peng’s general flow chart figure 1. The
teaching at the bottom of column 3 emphasizes the ability to discriminate
such as to determine Asian language fonts among other language fonts. This
determining ability is also discussed with respect to Hebrew in figure 6 and
element 178 in this figure at the bottom of column 5. Note also the showing
in figure 7 and the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6 with respect to Far
Eastern languages. Thus, determining a font determines a language from the
printer’s perspective.
With respect to Watanabe the essential position at pages 6 and 7 of the
principal Brief on appeal is that this reference processes character strings
only from a known language (either version of Japanese characters). Thus,
Appellants urge that “Watanabe only suggests processing character strings
that include characters corresponding to a single known language.” We
likewise disagree with these views since the teachings at column 6 of
Watanabe and the paragraph bridging columns 27 and 28 appear to us to
teach the ability to discern character strings among a plurality of languages
in addition to the dominant teaching in Watanabe relating to determining the
kana or kanji fonts of Japanese.
Since we believe the artisan would aptly characterize the teachings
and showings in Watanabe as buttressing those already in Peng, we do not
agree with Appellants characterization in the Brief and Reply Brief that there
is no proper motivation to combine these references. The artisan may well
consider the teachings of Peng to be sufficient alone to have rendered
obvious the subject matter of the rejected representative independent claim 1
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013