Appeal No. 96-3635
Application 08/209,096
method claim requirements defining;
(1) machine computing of a suspiciousness value for each of a plurality of digital images
as a function of the image quality parameters and detected anomalous conditions,
(2) continuing machine scanning of a plurality of documents independent of the results of
a machine computation of suspiciousness values,
(3) making a machine recommendation to archive based on the machine computed
suspiciousness values,
(4) providing visual review of visual digital images, and
(5) changing image quality parameters in a manner to produce future correspondence
between the machine computation of suspiciousness value and a document
accept/reject decision by a person.
It is urged that Dinan’s production of low-quality digital images produces immediate corrective
action, such as stopping document scanning. Spence on the other hand, continues check scanning
independent of whether or not a check’s MICR characters can be read but Spence then visually
inspects the not-read checks in order to tell the bank’s customer and the check’s printer that the
characters are bad. Appellant asserts that neither Dinan or Spence adjust user-defined parameters in a
manner to make a machine’s future document accept/reject decision correspond to the current
accept/reject decision made by a human.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007