Appeal No. 1998-1601
Application No. 08/679,595
OPINION
We reverse.
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner applies Bodapati for the teaching
of scanning a plurality of small documents by placing the documents in a frame. The
examiner recognized that Bodapati was deficient in a teaching of the generation of a
master image file and the processing of such a file, as claimed. Therefore, the examiner
relied on Konishi for the teaching of the claimed processing and found that it would have
been obvious to combine the references by connecting the flow of data methodology of
Konishi with the Bodapati apparatus.
We agree that Bodapati clearly teaches a card reader kit containing blocks for
placement of small documents therein, as claimed. We also agree that Bodapati is
deficient in teaching anything about generating a master image file and processing that
master image file, as claimed. Bodapati also fails to teach the “form file” which comprises
a location for each of the blocks on the card reader kit. If Konishi supplied these
deficiencies, then we might agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
combine these references and that the combination would have been suggestive of the
instant claimed subject matter. The problem is that Konishi is no more applicable to a
teaching of generating document image files “for each of the small documents” than is
Bodapati.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007