Appeal No. 1998-2848
Application 08/398,862
intervention of witnesses or testimony, as by actual sight,
hearing, or taste. It is not evidence which demonstrates how
the invention works as the Examiner appears to think.
Appellant's evidence is demonstrative evidence. The Examiner
hints at the correct reason by stating that a lab notebook
page having the word "E-card" is not the kind of evidence that
would enable one skilled in the art to understand the
invention. However, this does not inform Appellant of the
real deficiency in the evidence.
The Examiner also states that the invention was not
completely disclosed at the meetings noted in the evidence.
This is an unsupported conclusion. We have no way of knowing
from the evidence exactly what was conveyed at the meetings.
The real reason the evidence does not establish
conception is because it does not show that Appellant was in
possession of the claimed invention. The showing of
conception must be commensurate in scope with the claims. All
independent claims 1, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 38 contain the
following limitation: "each ETC . . . having an electronic
format that supports card scarcity and card authenticity."
"Card scarcity" can be generated by user skill, timing, copy
- 22 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007