Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
Appellants did not traverse these findings of the Examiner. FF 5
and 8.
Accordingly, we find that Puckett shows capturing data errors to a
database and extracting data from the received document and using it to
provide a document identifier, and saving the document identifier to a
database as an index for the error data, the document identifier correlated to
the received document. Puckett therefore appears to show the subject matter
set forth in steps (c) and (d) of claim 1.
As to the subject matter of step (c) of claim 1, Appellants argued that
Puckett is not relevant because it does not show capturing error data “that
represents errors in inbound documents which are detected in the translation
process,” FF 6. This argument is unpersuasive.
Step (c) requires “capturing error data representing errors detected in
the translation to a tracking database.” An argument that the error data to be
captured represent errors in an inbound document is not commensurate in
scope with what is claimed.
Furthermore, the Examiner did not rely on Puckett to show capturing
error data representing errors detected in the translation to a tracking
database. The Examiner relied on Puckett to show as known a step of
capturing errors. It is Ricker which has been relied upon for detecting errors
in the translation of inbound documents. As already explained, one of
ordinary skill in the art reading Ricker would understand that in practicing
the Ricker process, translating an inbound document such that it is compliant
with a well-formed outbound document necessarily involves detecting
errors. The Examiner took the position that the combination of Ricker and
Puckett would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to detect errors in
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013