Appeal No. 2000-0962
Application 08/885,801
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The basis for this rejection of the claims is set forth
on pages 2-5 of the final rejection which has been incorporated
into the examiner’s answer [answer, page 4]. Before arguing each
of the claims individually, appellant makes several general
observations about Fitzpatrick. Specifically, appellant argues
that Fitzpatrick does not disclose how to identify an address
automatically because Fitzpatrick requires a manual user input of
a template, and because Fitzpatrick requires the user to manually
assure that a telephone number has been captured [brief, pages 5-
7]. The examiner responds that the manual operations in
Fitzpatrick are optional, and the optical character recognition
process in Fitzpatrick automatically identifies or recognizes the
network address from the video image [answer, pages 5-6].
With respect to these general observations, we agree with
the examiner that Fitzpatrick discloses the step of automatically
identifying at least one network address contained in the image.
The information read by the optical character recognition device
in Fitzpatrick is automatically analyzed and stored in computer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007