Appeal No. 1999-1342
Application 08/568,232
As to the capability of the terminal showings in Figures 2 and 4 to operate in an on-
line manner, to the extent claimed there are clear showings and teachings relating to
communication links on-line to central data base computer systems. To be able to read
the violation record identifiers in field 135 in addition to the remaining information of the
data structures and the card itself in Figure 1, the capability must inherently exist in the
reference's teachings of the remote stand alone computer systems in Figures 2 and 4 to
operate in an off-line manner to read and therefore “process” the information read. The
discussion of the Figure 4 embodiment beginning in the middle of column 10 indicates that
the mobile computer terminal 107 may be embodied in the form of a self-contained laptop
computer to be utilized by the police officer in his or her vehicle.
Appellants' argument at page 13 of the Brief that “Eisenmann make [sic, makes] no
mention of nor suggests that the smart card be used regarding payment of a fine” is
misplaced. This is not what is recited in claim 3 on appeal. Merely the ability to process
“fine payment information using said driver's card” is claimed and not that an actual fine
payment is made using the card. Because Eisenmann teaches that computer terminals in
Figures 2 and 4 have the capability of reading the information off the card, as well as
communicating with a remote central computer, it is implicit that the ability exists to
selectively communicate on-line or off-line with a central processing unit means to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007