Appeal No. 2003-1051
Application No. 09/247,134
Appellants argue in the reply brief (pages 4-7) that Lech
really discloses two modes of operation, the first mode scanning
documents and saving both an electronic graphic image and ASCII
text recognized using character recognition software for every
one of the scanned documents; and the second mode scanning
documents and temporarily storing the entire electronic scanned
image. It is in this second mode that Lech discloses the use of
a template but, since character recognition software is not used
in this mode, the extracted information is stored as graphic
images. We do not agree with appellants’ assessment of Lech
since the reference indicates that specific data, whether
graphical or textual, can be extracted and used as an input to an
application (e.g., see column 5, lines 37-48).
Nevertheless, it does not appear that any combination of
Lech with Manduley or Kolling would result in storing data into a
database wherein that data is obtained from bills in paper format
and bills in electronic format and wherein the paper bill is
scanned “to enter specific data contained in the paper bill.”
The examiner says it would have been obvious to combine
Manduley’s integration of paper and electronic mail handling,
Kolling’s electronic statement presentation and Lech’s creation
of a template and extracting specific data from a paper document
-11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007