Appeal No. 1996-3639
Application No. 08/076,504
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 30, 1996) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 17, filed September . 1, 1995) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that Cain does not teach a second pass through the document
processor and for associating an image signature read from that document with an image
signature previously stored in the record storage. (See Brief at pages 6-7.) We agree
with appellant. While not all the independent claims recite the second pass through the
document processing system, claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 include limitations that
an image signature is compared to a previously stored image signature, recalling data and
using data associated with the stored image signature to perform some processing.
Clearly, Cain does not teach this comparison. The Examiner argues at length that the use
of the MICR reader would be the second pass and that the data read therefrom
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007