Appeal No. 1999-1342
Application 08/568,232
payment process as a payment method for collecting said fine.” In addition to not finding
any teaching or suggestion in Eisenmann relating to the direct payment process recited in
this claim, we reach a similar conclusion with respect to the alternative bank payment
process feature as well. Because there is not taught in Eisenmann a plurality of payment
methodologies, there is also no teaching or suggestion of selecting one among a plurality
as required by this clause of claim 7 on appeal. As noted earlier, Eisenmann only teaches
the optional prepayment process capability and not any of the other payment types
including the direct payment and bank payment process types. The examiner's views,
such as at page 11 of the answer, go well beyond a fair reading of the reference and its
teachings and suggestions to speculate that it would have been obvious to have utilized
essentially a direct payment methodology or one done with an ATM card. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8 through 13.
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to independent claim 3 and sustain
the rejection thereof. The pertinent portion of this claim argued by appellants is the
recitation of a “portable terminal means for processing the identification information on a
driver and fine payment information using said driver's card by selectively communicating
on-line or off-line with said central processing means.” The data
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007