Appeal No. 1999-0477 Page 4
Application No. 08/571,236
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 2-13.
Accordingly, we reverse, essentially for the reasons set forth
by the appellant.
We note, at the outset, the appellant’s statement (brief,
page 4) that claims 2-13 do not stand or fall together because
the dependent claims 2-12 each provide further patentable
limiting features. From our review of the brief, we find that
the appellant only provides separate arguments with respect to
dependent claim 9. Accordingly, each of the other dependent
claims will rise or fall with the claim from which it depends.
We begin with the rejection of claims 2-8 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Biggs in view of Moreno.
The examiner asserts (answer, page 3) that Biggs does not
disclose a chip card, including a memory and processor. To
overcome the deficiencies of Biggs, the examiner turns to
Moreno. The examiner states (answer, page 4) that Moreno
teaches a chip or smart card which includes “memory to hold
data (storage 1) and processor (electronics) to process the
stored data.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007