Appeal No. 1998-0624
Application No. 08/373,118
As pointed out above, although the references may recite
relevant claim language such as image, computer, scanning and
OCR, they do not meet the requirements set forth in the
claims, and have not been combined in a convincing manner.
Claim 8, the other independent claim, recites the same
unmet limitations as noted with respect to claim 1. Thus, we 1
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8.
The remaining claims on appeal also contain the above
limitations discussed in regard to claim 1 and 8 and thereby,
we will not sustain the rejection as to these claims.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 through
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
1Claim 1 does not require identification of MICR codes
and their locations by OCR scanning, thus such identification
reads on the applied art. However, claim 8 ties this
identification to the OCR scanning and is not considered to be
met by the references.
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007