Online Handwriting Recognition, Pen Computing, and Shorthand Alphabets (with discussion of the Xerox v Palm patent infringement case on the Graffiti alphabet) Charles Tappert Pace University, New York, USA

Summary Part 1 – An Introduction/Overview of Online Handwriting Recognition and Pen Computing Part 2 – Shorthand Alphabets Prior to Pen Computing Part 3 – Shorthand Alphabets Used in Pen Computing Discussion of Xerox v Palm Patent Infringement Case Future Research Possibilities in Pen Computing

Conclusions Online handwriting recognition Although we have had many advances in recent years, the unconstrained handwriting recognition problem has not been completely solved

Conclusions (continued) Xerox v Palm Patent Infringement Case Started 1997 and settled out of court in 2006 Palm paid Xerox several million which may have just covered Xerox’s legal expenses – a clear win for Palm Validity – arguments were made that the patent was invalid – many prior art alphabets (both pre and post pen computing) used Single-stroke symbols Small number of basic shapes, many prior-art shapes used by Xerox Infringement – although the patent was considered valid with a scope narrowed by the invalidity arguments, further arguments were made that Graffiti did not infringe Graffiti designed for ease of learning – similar to Roman alphabet, many different symbol shapes, variations allowed for many symbols Goldberg alphabet designed for speed of input, small number of basic shapes, maximum symbol separation (maximal shape overlap 50% compared to maximal Graffiti shape overlap 90%)

Research Possibilities in Pen Computing (See Tappert/Cha Research Ideas) Wiggliness – extend M.S. thesis work Chatroom shorthand – extend M.S. thesis work Numerous forensic study possibilities E.g., Handwriting Style Identification – Manfredi’s DPS dissertation