Appeal 2007-0820
Application 09/734,808
1 i.e., in the phrase “consumer electronics device” itself. According to the
2 claim, the “consumer electronics device” comprises a “processor” but it does
3 not say where the processor is located or where its functions must be
4 performed (FF 3). Although a “consumer electronics device” may be a
5 single, unitary object, housing all the functions needed to operate the device,
6 that is not always the case. Consumer electronics devices packaged to
7 include, for example, a combination of a base station and a remote
8 transmitter whereby the base station processes information received from the
9 remote transmitter (e.g., by wireless communication) are also well known
10 (FF 4). The claim is worded broadly and thus does not exclude such a
11 combination (FF 5). Furthermore, the Specification describes, as an
12 embodiment of the inventive device, a system wherein the bioauthentication
13 and sub-credit limit matching functions reside on a server (FF 6, 7). In light
14 of the Specification, the claimed “device” has a broad scope and does not
15 limit the processor to one that is “locally” positioned.
16
17 The Graham Factors
18 The patentability of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002) depends
19 on whether the claimed subject matter is obvious in view of Nakano,
20 Dethloff, and Harada.
21 The Examiner found that Nakano discloses all of the elements of
22 claim 5 except for Nakano’s authentication information is not provided by a
23 bioauthentication device, and Nakano fails to disclose a local storage device
24 for the memory, where the memory is part of the consumer electronics
25 device (Answer 4-5). The Appellant does not traverse these findings by the
26 Examiner (Appeal Br. 8-9). We disagree, however, with the Examiner’s
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013