Appeal 2007-0493
Application 10/289,967
Patent 6,144,380
display screen, causes the action to be executed, the method
comprising:
receiving hand-written user input;
recognizing said user input as one or more search strings;
searching the electronic book, including said at least one
block, for said one or more search strings; and
displaying, on the display screen, a portion of the
electronic book associated with at least one of the one or more
search strings.
4. The Examiner rejected added reissue claims 5-15, 17-37, 39-59,
61-85, and 87-101 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as “being an improper recapture of
claimed subject matter that was deliberately canceled in the application for
the patent upon which the present reissue is based” (Answer 4-6) .
5. The Examiner rejected reissue claims 1-4 (original patent
claims 1-4) and added reissue claims 5-15, 17-37, 39-59, 61-85, and 87-101
as being based on a defective reissue oath under 35 U.S.C. § 251
(Answer 6).
6. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
More US 4,839,634 Jun. 13, 1989
Vertelney US 5,341,293 Aug. 23, 1994
Ballard US 5,377,281 Dec. 27, 1994
Dickinson US 5,500,929 Mar. 19, 1996
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013