Appeal No. 96-1903
Application 08/263,368
Rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over Hubbard in
view of APA, Calvi and Auslander. We have considered the
Examiner’s position [supplemental answer, pages 6 to 7] and
Appellant’s argument [second reply brief, page 5]. Since
claim 7 depends on claim 6 and contains at least the
limitations discussed above in regard to claim 6. Auslander
does not the cure the deficiencies noted in the combination of
Hubbard, APA and Calvi to reject claim 6. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claim 7 over Hubbard in view of APA,
Calvi and Auslander is not sustained.
Rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over Hubbard,
APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor. We have sustained above the
obviousness rejection of claim 9 over Hubbard, APA, Auslander
and Calvi. Claim 11 depends on claim 9 and contains the
additional limitation: “including means for ... encrypted
number ... indicia.” (Lines 1 to 3). We have considered the
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007