Appeal No. 1998-0889
Application 08/006,585
the system in Hakamatsuka appears intended to be a central system,
there is no structural or process reason why it cannot be used to
issue cards during an interview, where the interview in Hakamatsuka
is the time during which the personal information and photograph is
gathered. Nor is there any structural or process reason why Otsuka
cannot be used to issue cards during an interview. The fact that
using the systems in Hakamatsuka or Otsuka would possibly be more
complex and expensive than Appellant's system, and therefore not
practical for a small card-issuing operation, is not a technical
reason indicating nonobviousness. See Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc.
v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013, 217 USPQ 193, 200 (Fed. Cir.
1983) ("the fact that the two disclosed apparatus would not be
combined by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as
saying that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art
felt that there was some technological incompatibility that prevented
their combination. Only the latter fact is telling on the issue of
nonobviousness."); In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718, 219 USPQ 1, 4
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claims 3 and 8 are similar to each other. The limitations of a
"cardholder," "smudge resistant" ink, "means for delivering the ink,"
and card issuance during a client interview have been addressed
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007