Appeal No. 2006-0989
Application No. 09/802,634
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3-6, 9-13,
15-18, 21 and 23-26 over O’Leary in view of Rallis, and claims 2, 7, 14, 19, 22 and 27
over O’Leary in view of Rallis, de la Huerga and official notice.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to address only the
independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 13 and 21.1 Claim 1 requires a portable device
having a body with a memory therein containing financial account information. Claim 13
requires a computer readable medium including software comprising instructions for a
host computing device to fill in financial account fields with financial account information
stored on a portable device. Claim 21 requires the step of filling in financial account
fields with financial account information stored on a portable device.
The examiner argues that O’Leary discloses at column 9, lines 15-20 that the
contents of a wallet including financial information are downloaded to portable devices
such as personal digital assistants and cellular telephones, and that O’Leary fills in a
form using the information from the wallet (answer, page 9).
1 The examiner does not rely upon de le Huerga or official notice to remedy the
deficiency in O’Leary and Rallis as to the independent claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007