Appeal 2007-1302
Application 09/818,003
analogous to document data is clearly misplaced since it does teach the
claimed document data is within its tokens. Appellant’s principal Brief on
appeal does not contest the Examiner’s other correlations at page 5 of the
Answer with respect to the subject matter taught in Eldridge and the other
steps recited in claim 1 on appeal. As indicated by the panel during the oral
hearing, it appears plain that the reference to Eldridge alone would have
rendered obvious the subject matter of representative claim 1 on appeal.
As also indicated to Appellant’s representatives during oral hearing,
Neukermans alone also would have rendered obvious the subject matter of
claim 1 on appeal. The scanner 100 in this reference is connected to or an
integrated part of a so-called PDA as in Eldridge. Note the showing in
figure 5 as well. As noted by the Examiner with respect to the middle of
column 1 and the paragraph at column 3, lines 51 through 60, actual
document data is captured by the scanner associated with the PDA, where
the information thus scanned is in the form of document data that is stored
which is plainly communicated on a path either to an associated notebook or
laptop computer or over a network.
Claim 1 recite in its preamble that the data processing apparatus is
“for identification of a document” and that the sending of a document data at
the end of claim 1 on appeal is “for identification of the document.” As
indicated to Appellant’s representatives during the oral hearing, there is no
positively recited step of conducting this function of identification in claim 1
on appeal. As such, the mere sending of the document data in both
Neukermans and Eldridge obviously would have been considered by an
artisan to occur “for” any purpose, for any end use, including identification
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013