Appeal 2007-0493
Application 10/289,967
Patent 6,144,380
V. DISCUSSION – REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
A. Introduction
In the Brief at page 3, Appellants state:
The invention “provides an efficient method for searching or ‘finding’
character strings within a document [e.g., an electronic book].
Preferably, this is accomplished by first displaying a dialog box
having a find field. Handwritten information written within the find
field is then recognized as a character string,” See col. 3, lines
24-28; col. 16, lines 55-57, col. 21, line 15 to col. 24, line 21; and
FIGS. 10 (elements 218 and 219) and 25-28.
The statement directly above and Appellants’ Specification indicate a
two part process where first a find button is selected to open a find dialog
box, and after a user writes in a search string, the system recognizes the
search string as text. Although the Examiner and Appellants are silent as to
their claim interpretations on this point, our review of the Examiner’s
rejection and Appellants’ Briefs finds that each is consistent with
Appellants’ disclosed two part process.
B. Claim Interpretation
In the brief at page 3, Appellants state:
Pending reissue independent claims 5, 27, 49 and 77 are
directed generally to receiving handwritten user input, recognizing
this input as one or more search stings and displaying electronic book
content associated with the search string.
We interpret the language of claims 5, 27, 49, and 77, quite differently
than has apparently been done by the Examiner and Appellants. In
- 51 -
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013