Appeal No. 97-3671
Application 08/266,977
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
With regard to the first three paragraphs of claim 8, the
examiner’s analysis is merely this: "See Figs. 7 and 8 and
col 16, line 63 of Langhans and col. 1, lines 30-56 of Milnes
(especially the reference [in Milnes] to Pfost) as discussed
above." The lack of specificity equates to a mere invitation
for the reader to apply Milnes in some way. It is unknown
what the examiner had in mind with regard to each feature
recited in the first three paragraphs of claim 8.
In any event, we have read the cited portions of the
references and have found several deficiencies in each for
meeting the claimed invention. Nothing is readily apparent
from Langhans with regard to storing in the customer’s card
encoded data representative of an event or transaction having
a predetermined number of permissible occurrences. Nothing is
readily apparent from Milnes or Pfost with regard to the
storing of a personal identifier on the parking card of
Milnes.
Also, with regard to clauses (a) and (b) in claim 8, the
features of the invention requiring selective access based on
both the user identifier and the checking of consistency with
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007