Ex Parte Gardi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12491771 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/491,771 0612512009
107681 7590 06/23/2016
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael E. Gardi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14895 6019
EXAMINER
BALI, VIKKRAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL E. GARDI
Appeal2014-006989
Application 12/491,771
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of claims 1-
11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to "identifying an optical character recognition
(OCR) font to assist an operator in setting up a bank remittance coupon
application." Spec. 1 :7-8.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
December 23, 2013), Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 27,
2014), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 16, 2013), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 26, 2014), and the Specification
("Spec.," originally filed June 25, 2009).
Appeal2014-006989
Application 12/491,771
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method of identifying an
optical character recognition (OCR) font to assist an operator in
configuring a bank remittance coupon application, the
computer-implemented method comprising:
electronically on a processor reading an OCR font in a
zone of the bank remittance coupon;
electronically on a processor comparing the read OCR
font with an OCR font stored in a look-up table to determine if
the read OCR font meets predetermined criteria; and
storing the read OCR font into a configuration file to
setup at least a portion of the bank remittance coupon
application when the read OCR font meets the predetermined
criteria.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Richardson (US 2006/0219773 Al; Oct. 5, 2006) and King (US
7,606,741 Bl; Oct. 20, 2009). Final Act. 2-8.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's contentions of Examiner error
(App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2-3). We adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-8) and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer
2
Appeal2014-006989
Application 12/491,771
(Ans. 8-10). However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds Richardson teaches all features
except,
It is however noted that Richardson, while disclosing OCR
comparisons, fails to explicitly recite "font" although one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have
reasonably interpreted an OCR comparison of characters as
including a comparison of fonts, and thus finding a match would
have been a character of the same font since it is well known in
the art that OCR comparisons are searched across a plurality of
fonts[.] See King Cols. 21-22, lines 65-67 & 1-20. King
describes how conventional OCR matching consist of a library
of characters for each font and thus when a newly scanned
character is compared to the stored images, a matching character
will also be a character of matching font.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues Richardson processes bank checks rather than "bank
remittance coupons" as claimed. App. Br. 3. We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. The Examiner finds "there is no disclosure or general
knowledge that would require a remittance coupon to be interpreted as
having differently handled data than any other known financial document
such as a check, deposit slip, invoice, etc." Ans. 9. The Examiner further
finds Richardson specifically discloses processing of remittance coupons
and defines a "check" to broadly encompass "financial documents that are
electronically read." Id. (citing Richardson i-fi-185, 274). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation of the recited "bank
remittance coupon" as encompassing the "check" of Richardson.
Appellant further argues the recited "configuration file" is not the
same as Richardson's "input buffer" because the recited configuration file is
3
Appeal2014-006989
Application 12/491,771
non-volatile to be used to setup subsequent processing and, by contrast, an
input buffer is a transient, temporary storage for information. App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends Richardson has no use for a configuration
file because the fonts to be processed are already known. Id. We are not
persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner broadly but reasonably
interprets configuration file to be "an accessible storage/ database/program
that contains information useful to the operation of the system [to] which it
belongs." Ans. 9. Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, both Appellant's
"configuration file" and Richardson's "input buffer" are encompassed by
this broad but reasonable interpretation.
Lastly, Appellant contends King fails to cure the deficiencies of
Richardson. App. Br. 4. We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error, at
least, because we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding
alleged deficiencies of Richardson.
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-11 and,
thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 2-11
for the same reasons as claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-11.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4