Appeal No. 2006-1995
Application No. 10/662,263
We are further of the view that even assuming, arguendo, that proper motivation
existed for the Examiner’s proposed modification of Parienti with Renner, the ensuing
result would not satisfy the specific combination set forth in independent claim 1. We
agree with Appellants that the passage of Renner beginning at column 13, line 30 cited
by the Examiner does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that Renner provides for a
smart card having access data which is modifiable by a device which reads the card as
claimed. Our review of the cited portion of Renner reveals that, at best, there is only a
disclosure that the smart card has a transaction counter which keeps track of the total
number of transactions. Any conclusion that such transaction counter may be accessed
and modified by the intelligent card reader, as asserted by the Examiner, can only be
based, in our view, on unwarranted and unsupported speculation.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the proposed
combination of the Parienti and Renner references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
1, nor of claims 2-10 dependent thereon.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007