Appeal No. 97-0171
Application No. 08/187,290
address or zip code and not the actual document which is encoded as a bar code.
Therefore, the text of the letter is not edited as the Examiner implies. Clearly, this is not a
reasonable interpretation of the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
The Examiner responds to appellants’ arguments stating that
The Zip Code information, coded or uncoded, is considered machine readable
data. Since the Zip Code data is in alphanumeric forms, it is highly probable and
obvious that this type of information could also be input[t]ed into a computer file or
database using an optical character[s] recognition [OCR] reader. From Mihm's
disclosure, it is clear that the barcoder 2 could read and interpret this data
information. The only difference is that Mihm is silent about the use of an optical
device for input this information in the barcoder 2.
.
.
.
In this case, Duthion discloses the method of converting music information in
barcode form into audible sound. Bockholt, in addition, extends Duthion's teaching
to print such musical information as a code on a sheet paper along with text
information. Mihm, further extends this teaching to allow one to edit such
information and printed as a barcode on a sheet of paper. With the motivation
provided in page 6 of the Final Office Action and the reasons stated above, the
examiner firmly believes that the proposed combination has established a prima
facie case of rejection. (See answer at pages 8-9.)
As stated above, we disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness and
the statement of the motivation for the combination of references. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 18 for the same reasons as above. Since we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 18, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 8, 9
and 19.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007