Appeal No. 1998-0624
Application No. 08/373,118
inherently contain an original graphic image (answer-page 3).
Now, in response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner
contends that controller 42 constructs a logical page
comprising checks (i.e., an original graphic image) which is
then sent to Raster Image Processor 62 which is a computer
(answer-page 7).
We are not convinced by the Examiner regardless of
whether 42 is considered to be the computer, or the new
contention that 62 is now considered to be the computer. The
claim clearly requires an original graphic image input into a
computer. The Examiner’s proposed inherent or constructed
graphic image is not the original graphic image required by
the claim.
The next step of claim 1 recites “scanning of said
graphic image within computer memory using an OCR program.”
Appellant argues “Appellant scans and analyzes an already
formed image while Hanson et al produces a latent image which
is subsequently developed. Appellant’s scanning contemplates
the examination in sequential fashion of the image in computer
memory by an OCR program.” (Brief-page 9.)
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007