Appeal 2007-1302
Application 09/818,003
documents, including the representative business card of Neukermans, to the
capabilities of Eldridge would not have destroyed the capabilities of
Eldridge since a lengthy document is not transferred.
It is believed that these remarks essentially address those additional
comments made by Appellants at pages 3 and 4 of the Reply Brief as to
representative independent claim 1 on appeal. Based upon the teachings in
Eldridge that we have outlined with respect to its document token’s ability to
convey a document title, the Examiner’s remarks at page 25 of the Answer
relating to the ability to identify a passage of a document and therefore the
document itself may not fairly be considered to be a new ground of rejection
as urged at the bottom of page 3 of the Reply Brief. Appellant’s own
Specification regarding the nature of the information from a document
plainly encompasses the Examiner’s observation as well as the title of a
document taught in Eldridge.
In view of the foregoing, we have sustained the rejection of
independent claim 1 as representative of independent claim 45 as well.
Therefore, since no arguments are presented to us regarding their respective
dependent claims, the rejection of them is also affirmed.
As indicated earlier in this opinion, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the other independent claims on appeal. In distinction to the
subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on appeal, claim 12
recites the extraction of a portion of a document data “as scanning data”
which is used in a comparing step to be compared with reference data
leading to the selection, based upon a match of this comparison, of a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013