Appeal No. 2005-0052
Application No. 09/192,014
notwithstanding, it is our view that one of ordinary skill would
have been motivated and found it obvious, for the reasons
articulated by the Examiner, to utilize Xerox’s disclosed
signature verification feature (Xerox, page 2) in Irons,
especially since Irons discloses the scanning of invoice forms
with incorporated handwritten signatures.
We are further in agreement with the Examiner (Answer, pages
9 and 10) that Appellants’ arguments in response to the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. As pointed out by the Examiner, although
Appellants contend (Brief, page 9) that the embedded information
in the incorporated document tag 400 in Irons does not call for
services such as “scan and fax,” “scan and send via e-mail,”
etc., no such required services are set forth in appealed claim
1. In actuality, the language of claim 1 requires only that
decoded data from the document tag be associated with a service,
i.e., one that is undefined and unidentified, and that such
undefined and unidentified service be performed on the scanned
image of the document. In our opinion, Appellants’ arguments
improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007