Appeal 2007-0608
Application 09/738,647
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1, 6 and 8 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Shojima.
B. Claims 31 through 5 and 13 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shojima and Cok.
Appellants contend2 that Shojima, taken alone or in combination with
Cok, does not render claims 1, 4 through 6 and 9 through 12 unaptentable.
Particularly, Appellants contend that Shojima does not fairly teach or
suggest selecting a font by comparing a user’s handwritten characters to
characters of a plurality of fonts to determine a font for displaying the user’s
recognized characters, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 6 and 7;
Reply Br. 2). The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Shojima teaches the
cited limitations of representative claim 1 as comparing an input handwritten
character data with registered data dictionary to recognize a most similar
pattern, as well as to select and display a font corresponding to the
recognized character pattern. (Answer 3 and 7). The Examiner therefore
concludes that Shojima renders representative claim 1 unpatentable.
Appellants further contend that Shojima, taken alone or in combination with
Cok, does not render claims 3, 8 and 13 through 16 unpatentable since it
does not teach a creation unit for creating a new font on the basis of the
plurality of handwritten characters. (Br. 8). In response, the Examiner
1 We note that claim 3 improperly depends upon higher numbered claim 13.
2 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013