Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
in Audebert. The examiner has simply determined that a
verification takes place in Audebert, but this verification is
not based on the same parameters as calculated and used in the
claimed invention. Since no calculated time periods in Audebert
are based on the point in time designated as T1 in the claims,
Audebert does not fully meet the invention as recited in
independent claims 1, 6, 7 and 15. Therefore, none of the
dependent claims is anticipated by Audebert either.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner simply concludes that the claimed
invention would have been obvious to the artisan in view of
Audebert if Audebert does not anticipate the invention.
Appellant’s specification describes the claimed relationship
between Tr12, Tr25 and Ta15 as detecting a type of fraud which
can go undetected in Audebert. Absent appellant’s disclosure of
this problem with Audebert and the proposed solution, there is no
suggestion on this record for calculating the time periods set
forth in the claims and the relationship between them. The
examiner has never addressed this particular deficiency in the
Audebert teachings so that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of the obviousness of the claims on appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007