Appeal No. 95-3031
Application 08/057,206
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of
these rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 13) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 19) and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 18).
The Rejection of Claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 21-31
under 35 U.S.C. §102
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained. Ojha simply does not
disclose (1) validating character and field data candidate strings using a user profile associated
with a particular user as in independent claim 5, (2) means using a user profile associated with a
particular user for validating character and field data candidate text as in independent claim 21,
(3) an image processing server for extracting character and field data text from an image through
use of a dynamic database containing transaction context information and user profile information
associated with the user as in independent claim 26 or, (4) accessing a user profile and validating a
plurality of candidate strings using the user profile as in independent claim 27. The examiner
asserts that at column 7, lines 38-53, Ojha teaches establishing a user profile, and using the user
profile to extract text and field data from an image. We disagree. At the aforementioned location
Ojha merely teaches that a user of his invention can create a library of user-defined character
codes to reflect whatever selective editing of a document and/or machine control functions the
user desires. The creation of a library in Ojha does not establish a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007