Appeal No. 2006-1090 Application No. 09/848,005 Claims 20-25 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 102 as being anticipated by Brooks. Claims 20-25 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks and Ahmadi. We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Mar. 4, 2005) and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 12, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed Aug. 4, 2005) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected. OPINION Brooks discloses a document processing system that includes an “action window” 100 (Figs. 1 and 2A). Documents (e.g., checks) are read by a character recognition imaging unit. The operation may require correction by a human operator before further processing of the documents. Action window 100 presents a document for correction via “conventional data entry procedures.” An image of the document may also be presented to a local operator via a local video monitor or “a remotely located operator via a LAN connection.” Following correction of the document by the operator, the document is provided to encoder 102, whereby the document is encoded with MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) character data in accordance with the character recognition process or the operator-directed process performed at action window 100. Col. 3, l. 10 - col. 4, l. 21; col. 9, ll. 18-53. -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007