Ex parte Hirayama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2000

08247521 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2000)

We observe that on August 2, 2000 (paper no. 24), appellant filed a1
waiver of the oral hearing set for September 12, 2000.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOMOSHI HIRAYAMA
____________
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
____________
ON BRIEF1
____________
Before KRASS, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 7, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a character input
apparatus which includes a display for displaying characters
and corresponding character type identifiers simultaneously.
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads
as follows:
1. A character data input apparatus comprising:
a memory for storing together codes of characters
and character kind identifiers for distinguishing characters
of different kinds, each of said identifiers corresponding to
a plurality of said characters of the same kind;
a display for displaying together said characters
and their corresponding character kind identifiers;
means for inputting a hand written character:
a controller responsive to said input means for
outputting a character and its corresponding character kind
identifier from said memory;
a first area in said display for displaying one said
character; and
a second area in said display for displaying said
character kind identifier individually associated with said
one character wherein said one character may be distinguished
from a character of similar appearance, but of a different
kind.
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Appellant's admitted prior art discussed on pages 1-2 of the
specification and illustrated in Figure 21 (APA)
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a) as being anticipated by APA.
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
3
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed November 15, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper
No. 20, filed August 16, 1995) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates
on page 3 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Appellant argues each of claims 1, 4, and 6
separately, but not the remaining dependent claims.
Therefore, we will treat the claims according to the following
three groups: (1) claims 1 through 3 and 7/(1-3), (2) claims
4, 5, and
7/(4, 5), and (3) claims 6 and 7/6.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will affirm the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7/(4, 5) and
reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, and 7/(1-3,
6).
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
4
Claim 1 recites that plural characters and their
corresponding character kind identifiers are to be displayed
together. Appellant contends (Brief, page 4) that in APA as
shown in Figure 21 "clearly characters and their corresponding
identifiers are not displayed together, nor are plural
identifiers displayed." The examiner responds (Answer, page
5) that recognized characters and character kind information
for the recognized characters are
displayed together since the information is
displayed on the same tablet display and displayed
at the same time. The conventional display system
illustrated in claim [sic, Figure] 21 displays a
plurality of characters and their character kind
identifiers since when the user wants to view the
kind information for any of the displayed
characters, he simply moves the cursor to that
displayed character and that character and
corresponding kind information are displayed
together.
We agree with the examiner that plural characters are
displayed and that for any character displayed the character
kind identifier can be displayed together therewith. However,
only one identifier can be displayed at any given time.
Therefore, plural characters and the corresponding plural
identifiers are not displayed together, as required by claim
1. "It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
5
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim."
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Since APA fails to meet every limitation of
claim 1, APA does not anticipate claim 1 nor its dependents,
claims 2, 3, and 7/(1-3).
Regarding claim 4, appellant's sole argument is that
"identification of handwritten characters is displayed in the
second areas associated with the first areas in which the
characters are entered, simultaneously with data entry,
without having to initiate a separate procedure, as is the
case in connection with the apparatus of Fig. 21." However,
we first note that we find no limitation of display
simultaneous with data entry recited in the claim.
Nonetheless, as the examiner explains (Answer, page 6), as
each handwritten character is input and the recognized
character is output in a square B, the cursor is located at
the same square B. As admitted by appellant (Specification,
page 2, lines 16-20), portion D displays the character kind
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
6
for the character located in the square B where the character
cursor is positioned. Since the cursor is located at the
square of the character being input, the character type
identifier for the character being input will be displayed in
portion D. Thus, the identification of a character being
entered is displayed in the second area simultaneously with
data entry. Accordingly, we will affirm the rejection of
claim 4 and the claims grouped therewith, claims 5 and 7/(4,
5).
Claim 6 requires that each character has a first and
second area and that the two areas are contiguous to each
other. The examiner asserts that "contiguous" is defined as
"nearby or adjacent" and that areas B and D in APA Figure 21
"can be reasonably characterized as nearby or adjacent." We
disagree. First, in Figure 21 there is not a separate second
area for displaying the identifier for each character. All of
the characters share a single area of identifiers. Therefore,
APA fails to meet the first portion of the claim. Further,
even taking the examiner's definition of "contiguous," we do
not find areas B and D in Figure 21 to be contiguous. Area D
is adjacent to the last four characters, but not to each
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
7
character. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 6.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed as to claims 4, 5, and 7/(4,
5) and reversed as to claims 1 through 3, 6, and 7/(1-3, 6).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
8
HILL, STEADMAN & SIMPSON
85TH FLOOR SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606