Appeal No. 2004-1484
Application 09/438,396
Walker ‘573. Like the examiner, noting that the smart card of
Fernandez is not expressly said to include a processor, we find
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time appellant’s invention was made to use a smart
card like that of Walker ‘573, i.e., having both a memory and a
processor to control access to the memory, in the system of
Fernandez so that the smart card can properly interact with the
POS system of Fernandez and increase or decrease values on the
card in response to the POS transaction.
We also agree with the examiner’s assessment of the weight
to be accorded the data stored on the portable device (e.g.,
smart card) set forth in claims 13 and 14 through 18 on appeal.
In this instance, the data representing category values in
different profit margin ranges and customer identifying
information stored in the memory of the portable device is a mere
arrangement or compilation of data that is merely stored so as to
be read or outputted by a computer without creating any
functional interrelationship. Thus, the data stored in the
memory of the portable device as specifically defined in both
independent claims 13 and 14 is merely nonfunctional descriptive
material and is therefore not entitled to patentable weight.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007