Appeal No. 1999-1342
Application 08/568,232
Claim 1, in part, recites a data structure on an IC card comprising “an information
area for direct payment transactions in which information related to a direct payment
transaction is recorded.” The examiner's apparent view is that because the reference
teaches prepayment transaction information recorded on the smart card shown in Figure 1
of Eisenmann, the reference implicitly in some manner teaches the claimed direct payment
transaction data structure area of claim 1 on appeal. We do not agree with this reasoning
of the examiner. We agree with appellants' view expressed at the top of page 10 of the
principal brief on appeal that the examiner has apparently made a leap from the
prepayment memory portion teachings attempting to establish a direct memory portion or
that it would have been obvious on the basis of the prepayment portion to have provided
for a direct payment portion. This essentially begs the question, in our view, as to the
substance of this feature. There is no teaching according to the understanding of the data
structure in Figure 1 and its associated discussion beginning at column 3 of Eisenmann or
any other portion of this reference which may be construed to indicate even the desirability
of providing for a direct payment feature as recited in claim 1 on appeal. As such, we
reverse the rejection of claim 1.
A similar feature is recited in independent claim 7 on appeal of “imposing said fine
and selecting one of a direct payment process, a prepayment process and a bank
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007