Appeal 2007-0608
Application 09/738,647
rejecting claims 4 through 6 and 9 through 12 as being unpatentable over
Shojima, taken alone or in combination with Cok.
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 3, 8 and 13 through 16 as
being unpatentable Shojima, taken alone or in combination with Cok. We
note that each of the cited claims requires a creation unit for creating a new
font based on the plurality of handwritten characters. As detailed in the
findings of fact above, we have found that Cok discloses improving the
appearance of a handwriting sample by combining digital images of the
sample including a normative image of the sample obtained from a font
storage. (finding of fact 11). In light of this finding, it is our view that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have aptly realized that the improved
appearance of the handwriting sample resulting from combining the digital
images of the sample amounts to creating a new font for the sample. It is
further our view that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily
recognized that such a new font is based upon the original handwritten
sample since it is a product of the digital images of the original sample.
Therefore, it follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting representative
claims 3 and 13 through 16 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Shojima and Cok.
B. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50
We find that claim 8 requires a creation unit for creating a new font
based on the plurality of handwritten characters. We find that Shojima does
not teach or suggest that limitation. It follows that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 8 as being unpatentable over Shojima. We have found,
however, that Cok teaches that limitation as discussed in the preceding
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013