Appeal No. 1999-2022
Application No. 08/963,987
is directed to row - by - row segmentation of a document and
controlling the optical character recognition. In other words,
Tan directly begins the process of character recognition of the
document image line by line and corrects for the proper image of
the selected segment of the document. Tan does not evaluate the
condition of the document before going into the line by line
evaluation of the image of the segment of the document.
Similarly, Lee is directed to the evaluation of the geometric
lines of the document image and is not directed to the assessing
of the image of a document before going into the document
itself. Therefore, we are in agreement with Appellants that the
combination of Tan and Lee does not meet the recited limitations
of claim 1. The corresponding apparatus claim, the other
independent claim 16, also contains limitations similar to those
contained in claim 1. Therefore, the combination of Tan and Lee
also does not meet the recited limitations in claim 16. We
consequently do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
1-3, 12 and 14-18 over Tan and Lee.
Tan, Lee and Miyagawa
The Examiner rejects claims 5-8 over this combination at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007