Appeal No. 1997-1382
Application No. 08/478,172
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Oct. 29, 1996) for the Examiner 's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 9, filed Aug. 7, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that Cain does not teach a second pass through the document
processor and for associating an image signature read from that document with an image
signature previously stored in the record storage. (See Breif at pages 6-7.) We agree
with appellant. While not all the independent claims recite the second pass through the
document processing system, claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 include limitations that an image
signature is compared to a previously stored image signature, recalling
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007