Appeal No. 1998-0752
Application 08/389,096
between the results of those recognition methods, as recited
in claim 12.
On pages 8 and 9 of the Brief, Appellant argues that the
combination of Toyama, Kao, and AAPA fails to suggest the
invention recited in claim 1, because none of the references
disclose or suggest the step of determining the differences
between adjacent (normalized) samples to generate a set of
ratio
difference values, and them comparing such a set with
predetermined sets of ratio difference values to recognize a
character being scanned.
Upon a careful review of Toyama, Kao, and AAPA, we fail
to find that any reference or combination of references
teaches determining the difference between selected sample
amplitude ratio values and adjacent sample amplitude ratio
values to generate a set of ratio difference values, followed
by comparing that set of ratio difference values with stored
ratio difference value sets to determine a recognized
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007