Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
examiner argues that adding the images of Funk to Templeton would
provide better security and a backup in case an element
malfunctions [answer, pages 25-27].
Appellants respond that since Templeton and Funk fail to
address the trade-off problem between counter space and
integration of functionality at the point of sale, they provide
no motivation for the integration of their teachings [reply
brief, pages 1-2].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6,
7, 9 and 23. Although appellants argue that the integration of a
magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) device and a check
imaging device are contrary to insight because of counter space
considerations, there is nothing in representative claim 1 which
relates to the size of the device. Without a limitation on size,
we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to add the known advantages of a check imaging device as
taught by Funk to the check handling device of Templeton. We
also note that Funk specifically teaches that an MICR reader, a
check amount entry device, and an image capturing device may be
implemented as an integrated input device [column 4, lines 6-9].
Thus, the collective teachings of Templeton and Funk would have
suggested the integrated device of claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007