Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
the correction algorithm" (EA12). Appellant responds that
"[i]f this is not a new ground of rejection, it is certainly a
total rephrasing of prior rejections" (RBr2). We agree with
appellant that the Final Rejection did not address the
specific limitations of claims 22 and 25, much less in this
specific way. Nevertheless, we consider the examiner's new
reasons to be unpersuasive.
The examiner compares the limitations of claim 17 with
claims 22 and 25 (EA9-12). The first two limitations of
claims 17, 22, and 25, establishing stored patterns and
comparing signals, are similar and are not disputed as being
in Katsuyama.
The third limitation in claim 17 of "identifying signals
. . . for which no match is found as ambiguous characters" is
not found in Katsuyama as discussed supra. The third
limitation of claims 22 and 25 of "identifying signals . . .
which represent numerals" is found in Katsuyama because
Katsuyama identifies both letters and numerals.
The fourth limitation of claim 17 of "storing the signals
representative of images of ambiguous characters for use in
retrieval of documents in which the ambiguous characters
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007