Ex Parte Andel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 7, 2012

10353885 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Feb. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/353,885 01/29/2003 Richard S. Andel LM(F)6370 1577
26294 7590 06/11/2012
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
AHMED, SAMIR ANWAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte RICHARD S. ANDEL and EDWARD G. OVANDO

Appeal 2009-013809
Application 10/353,885
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013809
Application 10/353,885

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 16.
We reverse.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to Optical Character Recognition,
Specifically a method of classifying a character string by ranking a plurality
of candidate segmentations. See Specification page 4, and Figures 3 and 4.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for classifying a character string comprising
a plurality of alphanumeric characters, comprising:

determining a plurality of candidate segmentations for the
character string, each ranked according to an associated score;

providing at least two of the candidate segmentations to a
pattern recognition classifier;

classifying the character string according to the highest-
ranked candidate segmentation to obtain a first classified
character string;

matching the classified character string to a list comprising a
plurality of known words and numerical sequences;

accepting the highest-ranked candidate segmentation if the
first classified character string matches one of the plurality of
known words and numerical sequences; and

iteratively reclassifying the character string according to the
ranked candidate segmentations until a classified character
string is obtained that matches one of the plurality of known
words and numerical sequences if the first classified character
Appeal 2009-013809
Application 10/353,885

3

string does not match one of the plurality of known words and
numerical sequences.

REFERENCES
NAKAO US 6,064,769 May 16, 2000
GOZZO US 6,269,171 B1 Jul. 31, 2001

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakao in view of
Gozzo. Answer 3-7.1

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 8 of the Brief, and pages 2
through 4 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.2 These arguments
present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Nakao in view of Gozzo teaches determining a plurality of candidate
segmentations for the character string as claimed?3

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 30, 2007.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated January 9,
2007, and Reply Brief dated May 30, 2007.
3 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues, however, we
do not reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the Appeal.
Appeal 2009-013809
Application 10/353,885

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nakao in
view of Gozzo teaches determining a plurality of candidate segmentations
for the character string. The Examiner finds that Nakao in figures 47 and 48
discloses a plurality of ranked candidate segmentations. Answer 7.
Appellants argue that what is depicted in figures 47 and 48 is the result of a
single segmentation and not plural segmentations. Brief 6. Further,
Appellants argue that the Examiner is erroneously considering segmentation
as synonymous with segmented; and assert that segmentation is a process
that divides something. Reply Brief 2. We concur with Appellants’
characterization and do not find that Nakao’s figures 47 and 48 teach the
segmentations as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 or dependent claims 3 through 8,
and 11 through 16.

SUMMARY
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11
through 16 is reversed.

REVERSED
Appeal 2009-013809
Application 10/353,885

5

ke