Appeal No. 96-3635
Application 08/209,096
making a human document accept/reject decision based upon said human visual review, and
changing said image quality parameters in a manner to produce future correspondence between
said machine computation of suspiciousness value and said human document accept/reject decision.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Dinan et al. (Dinan) 4,888,812 Dec. 19, 1989
Spence et al. (Spence) 4,947,321 Aug. 07, 1990
Behera 5,187,750 Feb. 16, 1993
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dinan and
Spence.
Claims 4, 5 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dinan,
Spence and Behera.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 16)
and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15).
Appellant’s Invention
The invention involves machine scanning of documents to form digital images thereof and the
detection of anomalous conditions that occur during scanning. The images are machine-judged for
image quality by using the detected anomalous conditions, and by using image quality parameters that
were previously defined for the machine by the user. Document scanning continues independent of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007