Appeal No. 1996-3639
Application No. 08/076,504
would have been a unique identifier to identify the document and used to compare. We
disagree. The Examiner has not identified a clear teaching within the four corners of the
reference that show the limitation pertaining to “attempting to match uniquely the image
signature from each document during the pass with a previously stored image signature;
recalling a stored record corresponding to the matched image signature for the document
when the image signature from the pass matches the previously stored image signature.”
3
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 .
REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR 1.196(b)
An obviousness type double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent
and the possible harassment by multiple assignees. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29
USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
1985) ; In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422
F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163
USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
3We make no finding whether the claimed invention would have been obvious over Cain since this
issue is not before the Board.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007