Appeal No. 1998-0889
Application 08/006,585
card identification affixed to each card" and "data entry means for
entering the unique card identification." Similar limitations are
found in method claim 41. All limitations in a claim must be
addressed. See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548
(CCPA 1970) ("every limitation positively recited in a claim must be
given effect in order to determine what subject matter that claim
defines"); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA
1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art."). Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1, 41, and 42 is reversed. The APA does not
cure the deficiencies with respect to claim 1; thus, the rejection of
claim 2 is also reversed.
With respect to claim 23, the rejection does not address the
limitations of a "host data processing system" and "means for sending
and receiving both data and information from the host data processing
system." The rejection of claim 23 is reversed.
Appellant argues that Hakamatsuka does not disclose issuance of
pre-manufactured plastic cards during a single interview with the
card issuing authority (Br9-10). We have trouble seeing how the
single interview/card issuance limitations provide any structural or
process limitations that distinguish over the references. Although
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007