Appeal No. 2004-0717
Application No. 10/099,605 Page 7
Appellant asserts (brief, page 14) that Goldberg “merely
mentions that module 15 can be replaced with a different OCR
algorithm.” Appellant further asserts (brief, page 15) that
“[a]ll that is described in the detailed description concerning
the display 30 and the data input device 60 is entering a set of
probabilities through data input device 60 or entering a command
through data input device 60 to activate the corresponding set of
probabilities.”
The examiner responds (answer, page 4) that “Goldberg
recited that a user can enable a new OCR algorithm (i.e.
‘package’) based on user input. Very clearly, there is no
‘fundamental difference’.” The examiner also argues (answer,
page 5) that “Goldberg clearly ‘enables’ an OCR package by
activating probabilities for a specific OCR package.”
Appellant replies (reply brief, page 3) that Goldberg
“recites modification of a single OCR module 15 by applying a set
of probabilities that characters from corresponding sets of
characters are the best characters for representing a
misrepresented word. Modification of an single OCR algorithm . .
. is analogous to applying a different set of N coefficients to
an nth order equation.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007