Appeal No. 1998-2480
Application No. 08/510,590
21-23.
With regard to independent claim 1, appellants argue that while Kubo contains a general teaching of
the use of braille on bank or credit cards, it does not teach or suggest the specific use of braille on
prepaid telephone cards nor the combination of a first braille field which is uniform across a batch of
cards with a second braille field which is unique to each card within the batch.
We agree with the examiner that since the use of credit card-size/type prepaid telephone cards was
known at the time of the instant invention (appellants do not deny this) and Kubo teaches the use of
braille on credit/bank cards, the artisan would clearly have been led to use braille on prepaid telephone
calling cards. Since telephone calling cards were known to have at least two fields, at least one for an
individual account number and one for a uniform toll-free access number, both numbers of which must
be decipherable by a user in order for the card to have any utility, it would have naturally led the artisan
to use braille in these two fields on the telephone calling card. Accordingly, we hold that Kubo would
have made it obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, to employ braille on a prepaid telephone
calling card in at least two fields, a first field that is uniform (the access number) across a batch of cards
and a second field which is unique (individual account number) to each card within the batch.
With regard to claims 2-6, while appellants identify these claims at page 8 of the principal brief, it is
clear from that passage of the principal brief that these claims will fall with claim 1 as the specific
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007