Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
Funk and Harr, appellants’ only argument is that these claims are
patentable based on their dependency from claim 1 [brief, page
10].
Since we find that the examiner has established at least a
prima facie case of the obviousness of these claims, and since we
have sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 10 for reasons discussed
above.
We now consider the rejection of claims 13-20 based on
Templeton, Funk, Hills and Higashiyama. With respect to claims
13-18 and 20, appellants rely on arguments considered above
[brief, page 10]. Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s rejection
of these claims for reasons discussed above. With respect to
claim 19, appellants additionally argue that the combination of
references fails to teach that the processor utilizes both the
MICR device and the imaging device to determine a content string
[brief, page 10]. The examiner responds that the system as
taught by Templeton and Funk would allow the processor to utilize
both the MICR device and the imaging device to determine the
content string [answer, pages 28-29]. Appellants respond that
the imaging device in Funk is not used for the purpose of check
acceptance [reply brief, page 3].
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007