Appeal No. 2004-0717
Application No. 10/099,605 Page 10
The next-to-final limitation “indicating which of the
plurality of OCR packages is the select OCR package” is
inherently taught by Goldberg. The claim limitation does not
recite how, onto whom, the indicating occurs. However, there
must be some indication to the CPU of which OCR algorithm to use.
Goldberg teaches that OCR algorithms can be switched, but without
an indication of some kind, the system would continue to use the
old OCR algorithm, rendering the feature of being able to switch
OCR algorithms useless, therefore, because indicator is made to
the system as to which OCR algorithm to switch to, Goldberg meets
this limitation of claim 1. Although we find that Goldberg meets
all of the limitation of claim becomes anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness, In Re Fracoloise, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldberg. Assume claims 2,3, and 5-9 fall with
claim 1 (brief, page 5), the rejection of claims 2,3 and 5-9, 15
is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 10-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldberg we begin with
claims 10-13 and 20. At the outset, we make reference to our
findings, supra, with respect to claim 1. In addition, because
the computer system of Goldberg will inherently use logic in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007