Appeal No. 96-3635
Application 08/209,096
of suspiciousness value and said human document accept/reject decision” is “…precisely what will
happen for both Dinan and Spence when correction is provided for the images and the images
rescanned.”
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained. We agree with appellant’s
positions with respect to at least items (2) and (5), above.
As to item (5), neither Dinan nor Spence teach or suggest changing image quality parameters.
Dinan broadly discloses taking appropriate corrective action if image quality from documents becomes
unacceptable (column 2, lines 32-38). Spence teaches that specific recommendations may be made to
a customer and/or check printer for correction of defects (column 3, lines 60-68), and this is an
appropriate corrective action. However, there is no suggestion in the references of changing image
quality parameters, such as the prescribed limits of Dinan’s gray scale distribution or histogram, in a
manner to produce future correspondence between the machine computation of suspiciousness value
and a document accept/reject decision by a human.
With respect to item (2), the examiner is correct that Dinan teaches that his malfunction signal
may be utilized to stop document transport (column 5, lines 52-54). However, Dinan teaches away
from continuing machine scanning when a malfunction signal occurs. For example, at column 3, line 39
to column 4, line 3, Dinan teaches the stopping of document transport when unacceptable quality image
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007