Appeal 2007-1302
Application 09/818,003
reference document itself. Each of the other independent claims on appeal
contains corresponding features.
Neukermans does not teach the use of his scanning data for purposes
of a comparing function with reference data for the identification of a
document. The Examiner relies upon these capabilities in Eldridge.
Specifically, the Examiner continues to make reference to the teaching at the
middle of column 2 of this reference for the compare capability of claim 12
in the Examiner’s positions with respect to the rejection. As to Eldridge, we
are generally in agreement with Appellant’s observations beginning at page
14 of the principal Brief on appeal relating to deficiencies and the teachings
of Eldridge as to the disputed features in this claim as we have just outlined.
Eldridge does not disclose, teach or even suggest using document or scanned
data in a comparing function with reference data for purposes of identifying
a document. One of the major functions of the tokens in Eldridge is to use
them as a part of a search request which is sent to a search engine for
retrieval of the document itself. As revealed at the bottom of the abstract,
the middle of column 1, the middle of column 2 and the top half of column
5, the comparison function in Eldridge relied upon by the Examiner is with
respect to comparing URL addresses and not document data per se, such as
the title of the invention we made reference to earlier that is taught in
Eldridge. Therefore, since we have found that the teachings of Eldridge and
Neukermans were properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
combined teachings would not have taught or suggested to the artisan the
essential comparing function recited in independent claims 12, 16, 22, 30,
34, 38, 47, 48, and 49 on appeal.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013