Appeal No. 95-4730
Application No. 08/061,495
Accordingly, one might argue that Tyburski is “merging” a
first and second list to provide a third list by choosing
either the result of the magnetic reader or the result of the
optical reader and finally selecting one of those results. Of
course, one might also argue that there is no “merging,” as
disclosed and claimed by appellants, in Tyburski because
Tyburski chooses one, or no, result of two distinct character
input devices and never physically combines these results in
any manner. In any event, we do not reach the question of
whether Tyburski, in fact, teaches “merging,” as broadly
claimed, because we find other claim limitations which are not
disclosed or suggested by the applied references.
First, the two types of character recognition systems,
besides being two distinct systems, detect the same static
characteristics of printed characters. Therefore, since both
the magnetic and optical character recognition devices of
Tyburski function as static character recognition devices,
there is no suggestion in Tyburski of combining lists
comprised of both static stroke information and dynamic, or
time ordered stroke information. Thus, the question arises as
to why the skilled artisan would have employed such a teaching
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007