Appeal No. 1996-3178
Application 08/407,275
limited area (final rejection, page 3). Thomas even teaches that bar codes and E PROM’s are alternate
and equivalent embodiments of his invention. Saliga and Thomas are both concerned with solving the
same problem - that of using a computer to maintain records and other information pertinent to the key
to which the identification device is attached. Accordingly, we cannot find error in the examiner’s
statement of the motivation for making the combination.
We turn next to appellants’ argument (Brief, page 4) that the examiner fails to provide a
reference or expert opinion supporting the proposition that bar codes are an art recognized equivalent
to an electronic memory. We disagree with appellants. As set forth by the examiner (Answer, pages 4
to 5), Thomas is relied upon to show the equivalence of an electronic memory to bar codes. As
discussed in Thomas at column 6, line 16 to column 7, line 21, many equivalent types of card coding
can be used to associate an identification device and key with user data. Thomas teaches that some of
these equivalent coding methods are magnetic stripe or tape (column 6, lines 6 to 15), optical character
recognition (column 6, lines 16 to 39), bar code scanning systems (column 6, lines 40 to 56),
electronically programmable read only memory or E PROM (preferred embodiment as discussed from
columns 4 to 6 and shown in Figures 1 through 5), and embossed character recognition (column 7, lines
4 to 21). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the reference to Thomas would have
clearly understood that an E PROM could be used in place of bar codes.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007