Appeal No. 1997-1382
Application No. 08/478,172
data and using data associated with the stored image signature to perform some
processing. Cain clearly 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 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.” Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §
3
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
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