Ex Parte Kane - Page 5



            Appeal 2006-3331                                                                               
            Application 10/829,797                                                                         
            identification access information over an electronic network from a first location to          
            an independent third party service provider (independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 24);            
                  (2) whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining               
            that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would             
            have been led to substitute a confidential personal identification number in place of          
            McNeal’s biometric data, in view of the teaching in Abecassis to use personal                  
            identification numbers for verification (claims 2, 17, 19, and 24); and                        
                  (3) whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining               
            that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would             
            have been led to use a voice-response unit over the phone line of McNeal for                   
            entering check data and access data, as taught by Tedesco (claim 24).                          

                                          FINDINGS OF FACT                                                 
                 We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a                
            preponderance of the evidence.  Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7                 
            USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard                
            for proceedings before the Office).                                                            
                 1. The Appellant’s Specification does not provide any definition of the                   
                       phrase “personal identification access information.”  In fact, the                  
                       Appellant’s Specification does not use this phrase at all.                          
                 2. Rather, the Specification uses the phrase “personal identification                     
                       information” (Specification, passim) and describes in one example that              



                                                    5                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013