Appeal No. 97-3671
Application 08/266,977
a predetermined number of permissible occurrences of the event
or transaction, and an altering of the data holding article to
record an access, have not been adequately accounted. The
following explanation by the examiner on page 5 of the answer
does not set forth how the above-noted features of the claimed
invention are met by Milnes, Langhans, Clark, and/or Pfost:
The prior art systems are obviously programmed
to either bar or grant based upon their verification
parameters. Note that both Langhans (col. 6, line
41) and Clark (col.2, line 50) read coded card data
and a separate "personal identifier", i.e. a PIN
number or a fingerprint, respectively.
It should be noted that the mere fact that the prior art
may be modified in a manner to arrive at the appellant’s
claimed invention does not make the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view
of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor. Para-
Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117
S.Ct. 80 (1996).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007