Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
Although the examiner is correct that the combination of
Templeton and Funk would allow the processor to utilize both the
MICR device and the imaging device to determine the content of
the check character string, there is no teaching within Templeton
and Funk to actually use the imaging device for such purpose.
The only device for actually determining the claimed character
string is the MICR device taught by Templeton. The fact that the
Templeton device could be modified to carry out the claimed
invention does not support a finding of obviousness without a
suggestion to actually make that modification.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of
the claims with respect to claims 1-10, 13-18, 20 and 23, but we
have not sustained the examiner’s rejections of the claims with
respect to claims 11, 19, 21 and 22. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-23 is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007