Ex Parte Lugg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

10315852 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD P. LUGG
____________________

Appeal 2010-007228
1

Application 10/315,852
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRYAN F. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is NCR Corporation of Maryland, LP. (App. Br.
1.)

Appeal 2010-007228
Application 10/315,852

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claim 14. Claims 1-13 have been canceled. (App. Br. 2).
2
We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method for processing check image data. (Spec.
1, ll. 5-7). In particular, upon receiving a check (30), an imaging camera
(40) captures a bitmap image (50) of the check, which is subsequently stored
in a check image data memory (44). (Spec. 6, l. 18- Spec. 7, l. 4). Upon
receiving (42) an endorse message containing details for endorsing the
associated imaged check (50), an endorsement data generator application
program (46) generates a bitmap image of the endorsement characters for the
check. (Spec. 8, ll. 15-22.) An endorsement manager (200) subsequently
appends the generated endorsement bitmap image to the captured bitmap
image of the check to thereby produce a composite bitmap image (54) of the
check. (Figs. 1-8, Spec. 9, ll. 16-23.)

2
Appellant’s Brief filed on December 3, 2009 indicates that claims 14-19
are pending in this application, but only claim 14 is being appealed. (App.
Br. 2, “Status of Claims”). Because the notice of appeal filed on August 20,
2009 clearly indicates Appellant’s intent to appeal only rejected claim 14,
we consider claims 15-19 as NOT being appealed herewith. Consistent with
the holding of BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d
1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), the Examiner should cancel non-appealed claims
15-19.
Appeal 2010-007228
Application 10/315,852

3
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 14 further illustrates the invention as follows:

14. A computer-implemented method of processing which is
other than displaying check image data in an image-based
check processing system, the computer-implemented method
comprising the steps of:
(a) at a first time, electronically by an imaging camera
capturing check image data which is representative of a
captured bitmap image of the check;
(b) electronically by a processor receiving a message
which contains a number of endorsement characters;
(c) at a second time which is different from the first time,
electronically by a processor processing the endorsement
characters contained in the message to provide endorsement
data which is representative of a generated bitmap image of the
endorsement characters, the generated bitmap image of the
endorsement characters being other than a captured bitmap
image of the endorsement characters;
(d) at a third time which is after the first and second
times, electronically by a processor appending the generated
bitmap image of the endorsement characters to the captured
bitmap image of the check to provide a non-captured composite
bitmap image of the check and the endorsement characters, the
non-captured composite bitmap image of the check and the
endorsement characters being other than a captured composite
bitmap image of the check and the endorsement characters; and
(e) storing in a memory the non-captured composite
bitmap image of the check and the endorsement characters so
that the non-captured composite bitmap image can be later
retrieved for subsequent displaying of the non-captured
composite bitmap image of the check and the endorsement
characters.

Appeal 2010-007228
Application 10/315,852

4
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Cossette US 6,282,308 B1 Aug. 28, 2001
Blossman US 6,721,783 B1 Apr. 13, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claim on appeal as follows;
1. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cossette.
2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cossette and Blossman.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3-7.
Anticipation Rejection
Dispositive Issue 1: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
finding that Cossette describes appending the generated, but non-captured,
bitmap image of the endorsement characters of a check to the captured
bitmap image of the check to thereby generate a non-captured composite
bitmap image of the check, as recited claim 14?
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Cossette
describes the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 3-4.) In
particular, Appellant argues that Cossette discloses capturing both the check
Appeal 2010-007228
Application 10/315,852

5
and the endorsement characters to generate a captured composite image,
whereas the claimed invention requires generating a non-captured composite
image including a non-captured bitmap image of endorsement characters.
(Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Cossette’s disclosure of sending
captured optical test patterns containing endorsement details to a controller
to generate a bitmap image of endorsement characters that are appended to
the captured image of a check to thereby generate a non-captured composite
bitmap image thereof describes the disputed limitations. (Ans. 6-7.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding
of anticipation. Cossette discloses an image capture subsystem (50) having
an imaging camera for capturing an image of a check to thereby validate the
data associated therewith. (Col. 3, ll. 59-65). Further, the image capture
subsystem includes a controller that controls a selective illumination array
therein to provide an optical test pattern, which is also captured by the
camera to generate captured bitmap image of endorsement data. (Col. 5, ll.
30-41). The captured bitmap image of endorsement data is then embedded
in the captured bitmap image of the check to generate a composite image of
the check. (Fig. 8, Col. 3, ll. 19-21, col. 6, ll. 17-31.) We thus find that
Cossette discloses appending the captured bitmap image of endorsement
data to the captured bitmap image of the check to thereby generate a
composite bitmap image of the check. Consequently, we agree with
Appellant that because Cossette’s composite image of the check includes
both the captured bitmap image data of a check and the captured bitmap
Appeal 2010-007228
Application 10/315,852

6
image of endorsement data thereof, it does not describe the non-captured
composite bitmap image of the check, as required by the claim. It follows
that Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 14.
Obviousness Rejection
Dispositive Issue 2: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Cossette and Blossman teaches or suggests
appending the generated, but non-captured, bitmap image of the
endorsement characters of a check to the captured bitmap image of the
check to thereby generate a non-captured composite bitmap image of a
check, as recited claim 14?
Appellant argues that because Cossette requires capturing the bitmap
images of both a check and the endorsement data associated therewith to
generate a captured composite image therefor, modifying Cossette to replace
the captured bitmap image endorsement data with Blossman’s generated (but
not captured) endorsement data would destroy the manner of operation of
Cossette’s system. (App. Br. 5-6). Further, even if the proposed
combination were proper, Appellant argues that it would be deficient
because Blossman’s generated endorsement data are not bitmap images. (Id.
at 6-7). We agree with Appellant. In particular, we find that the proffered
combination would at best result in a non-captured composite image having
generated endorsement data appended to the captured bitmap image of the
check. That is, the resulting generated composite image would fall short of
teaching or suggesting the bitmap image components of the endorsement
Appeal 2010-007228
Application 10/315,852

7
data as required by the claim. It follows that Appellant has shown error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 14.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claim 14 as set forth above.

REVERSED

ELD