Appeal No. 96-3635
Application 08/209,096
In response, the examiner asserts with respect to requirement (1), above, that appellant broadly
claims the computation of a suspiciousness value and draws attention to the fact that at page 9, lines 3-
9, of Paper No. 9, appellant indicated that the computation of the suspiciousness value is not defined in
detail because it can take many forms which are not critical to the spirit and scope of the invention.
Thus, the examiner contends Dinan’s computed histogram meets requirement (1).
As to the second requirement (2), it is urged that Dinan teaches that his malfunction signal may
be utilized to stop document transport, not that the signal must stop document transport.
Concerning the third requirement (3), the examiner states that Dinan makes a recommendation
to archive in image storage device 54 based upon whether the histogram (or suspiciousness value) has a
gray scale distribution within prescribed limits.
With respect to the fourth requirement (4), the examiner asserts that Dinan teaches at column 2,
lines 35-40, that corrective action can be taken if image quality from documents becomes unacceptable
and that Spence teaches that an operator can view display of a list of previous rejected items for an
account under review. It is urged that it would have been obvious to provide human visual review as
taught by Spence of the document images in Dinan’s system so as to facilitate the corrective action
suggested by Dinan.
Addressing the last requirement (5), above, the examiner contends that “changing said image
quality parameters in a manner to produce future correspondence between said machine computation
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007