Appeal No. 2000-0222
Application No. 08/938,044
from the receiving, recognition . . . and other functions of the Computer Server 10."
(Chong at columns 9, lines 34-38.) From this teaching, it is clear that the OCR
functionality and the translation functionality are separate and distinct functions.
Therefore, the examiner's reliance on the discussion of dictionaries used after the
recognition module performs the OCR function are not relevant to the scanning of the
image and analysis of the input image to determine the appropriate character
recognition as recited in the language of independent claim 1. (See answer at pages 3-
4.)
Appellant argues that the examiner has gone far-afield and applied the prior art
disclosures without giving any context to the claimed features. (See brief at pages 14
and 15.) We agree with appellant as discussed above and we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 5-7 and 15-17.
Independent claims 13 and 14 contain similar limitations which are not taught by
Chong. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of these claims and dependent
claims 18-21.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner's obviousness determination is based upon the same deficiency
as discussed above which the examiner has not remedied by the various uses of
"Official Notice." The examiner's obviousness determination has not corrected the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007