Appeal No. 2004-0717
Application No. 10/099,605 Page 11
carrying out assigned functions, we based that Goldberg insert
the limitation of claims 10. According, the rejection of claim
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As claims 11-13 and 20
fell with claim 10, the rejection of claims 11-13 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Turning next to claim 14-18 and 20, we began with claim 14.
At the outset, we find Goldberg teaches all the elements of the
claim. The additional limitation of “a computing device . . .
coupled to the scanning device”, is shown as a part of the
overall system in Goldberg (Fig. 1, elements 10 and 20).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious in view of Goldberg is affirmed. As claims 15-18 and
20 fall with claim 14 (brief, page 5) the rejection of claims 15-
18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Turning to reference to our findings, supra, with respect to
claim 1. In addition, next to claim 15, we cannot sustain the
rejection of the examiner. Claim 15 recites “means for modifying
the means for indicating a select OCR package,” although Goldberg
inherently provides for some indication of the new OCR package,
Goldberg does not teach this method of indication can be changed
in any way. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Goldberg is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007