Appeal No. 95-4730
Application No. 08/061,495
the magnetic reader fails to recognize a character while the
optical reader does recognize the character, than the
character is identified as that corresponding to the character
recognized by the optical reader. Conversely, where the
magnetic reader recognizes a character while the optical
reader fails to do so, the character is identified as that
corresponding to the character recognized by the magnetic
reader. In the situation where both readers provide signals
indicative of different characters, either one or the other is
chosen, depending on parameters of the system, or,
alternatively, a reject signal is generated. Thus, it appears
that Tyburski chooses one or the other or neither, but does
not choose in accordance with some combination or “merging” of
the data, in the sense of appellants’ disclosed merging
wherein the lists generated by the time ordered information
and the static information are physically merged into a third
list which is then used to choose the most likely character.
The examiner does make a cogent argument [answer-page 9]
that since a list, as claimed, need only contain one
character, a final selection of one character based on two
derived characters would meet the claim requirement.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007