Appeal No. 2006-1090
Application No. 09/848,005
Claims 20-25 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Brooks.
Claims 20-25 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brooks and Ahmadi.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Mar. 4, 2005) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Oct. 12, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Aug. 4, 2005) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Brooks discloses a document processing system that includes an “action window”
100 (Figs. 1 and 2A). Documents (e.g., checks) are read by a character recognition
imaging unit. The operation may require correction by a human operator before further
processing of the documents. Action window 100 presents a document for correction via
“conventional data entry procedures.” An image of the document may also be presented
to a local operator via a local video monitor or “a remotely located operator via a LAN
connection.” Following correction of the document by the operator, the document is
provided to encoder 102, whereby the document is encoded with MICR (magnetic ink
character recognition) character data in accordance with the character recognition
process or the operator-directed process performed at action window 100. Col. 3, l. 10 -
col. 4, l. 21; col. 9, ll. 18-53.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007