Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11,
21 and 23 based on Templeton and Funk. The examiner essentially
finds that Templeton discloses the invention of claims 1, 21 and
23 except for an imaging device for capturing an image of the
check. The examiner cites Funk as teaching this feature. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
employ an image scanner as taught by Funk in the system disclosed
by Templeton [answer, pages 3-9].
With respect to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 23, appellants argue
that there is no provided motivation to incorporate an imaging
device into Templeton because there is no suggestion that
Templeton would benefit from the imaging device. Appellants
assert that the motivation proposed by the examiner is not
suggested by either applied reference [brief, pages 4-7].
The examiner responds that Templeton teaches check
acceptance, and when modified with the imaging capabilities of
Funk, would provide for electronic check conversion and
acceptance. The examiner asserts that any additional measure to
obtain data in Templeton would enhance Templeton’s system. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007