Appeal No. 1999-0477 Page 7
Application No. 08/571,236
The appellant further asserts (brief, pages 6 and 7) that
a combination of Biggs and Moreno would not yield the claimed
invention because the identification circuit of Moreno is not
a processor and is not configured to determine steps in the
particular transactional application. The examiner’s response
(answer, page 6) is that nonobviousness cannot be established
by attacking the references individually. The examiner
asserts (id.) that
In this regard, the chip card and interface pack
10 of Fig. 1 taught by Biggs clearly implementing
transactional application (credit card paying
service) with determined steps. It is irrelevant
whether Moreno’s teaching of a smart or chip card
with processor (electronics) to configured to
determine steps in the particular transaction
application. The teaching of Moreno having a chip
card with processor (electronics) is modified to the
teaching of Biggs to provided [sic] more security
for the user when using the interactive system as
stated in the rejection above.
With regard to the examiner’s assertion that it is “the
chip card and the interface pack 10" of Biggs that teaches
“implementing transactional application (credit card paying
services) with determined steps.” We find that in Biggs,
(col. 1, line 64 through col. 2, line 7):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007