Appeal No. 2006-2981
Application No. 10/099,342
storage when a sensor detects that the device’s body has been removed from
the user [brief, page 7]. Appellant contends that although removing Ponert’s
bracelet disables the microchip, removing the bracelet does not cause the
microchip to expunge data from memory [id.]. Appellant emphasizes that the
claim recites expunging information – not the data storage itself [reply brief, page
1]. Appellant also argues that Ponert does not teach nor suggest that the data is
related to the person wearing the bracelet [brief, page 7].
The examiner responds that since Ponert’s noncontacting “data carrier” is
completely destroyed when the bracelet is opened, data is necessarily expunged
from memory [answer, page 7]. According to the examiner, if memory was not
destroyed, the data carrier could be transferred to others – a result counter to
Ponert’s purpose (i.e., providing a non-transferable personal entitlement via a
noncontacting data carrier) [answer, pages 7 and 8].
We will sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 21. We
agree with the examiner that destroying Ponert’s microchip when the bracelet is
removed necessarily expunges information stored in the chip. We recognize that
appellant’s device automatically deletes data from memory responsive to
detecting removal of the device from the user, and the memory can be later
rewritten with another user’s security information – a non-destructive feature that
is admittedly lacking in Ponert.3 But the scope and breadth of the claim
language simply does not preclude Ponert’s destruction of the data storage
3 We note in passing, however, that Ponert in the Background section of the patent discusses a
foreign reference, WO 88/09541, that discloses a security bracelet with a memory chip that is
deprogrammed when the bracelet is opened. See Ponert, col. 1, lines 40-47.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007