Appeal No. 1999-0477 Page 10
Application No. 08/571,236
processor configured to determine steps in transactional
applications.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to have provided Biggs with a chip card including an
identification circuit as taught by Moreno. However, we are
in agreement with the appellants (brief, page 6) that if the
teachings of Moreno and Biggs were combined, the only feature
of Biggs that would change is that the identification circuit
within the card would ensure that the correct person is using
the card.
From all of the above, we conclude that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention set forth in claim 13. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 2-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Turning to claims 9-12, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Biggs in view of Moreno, further in view of
Ware, we find that Ware does not overcome the deficiencies of
the basic combination of Biggs and Moreno. As claims 9-12
depend from claim 13, the rejection of claims 9-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007