Appeal No. 2000-0730
Application 08/761,098
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as not enabled.
We refer to the first Office action (Paper No. 2), the
final rejection (Paper No. 4), and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 7) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of
the Examiner's rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper
No. 6) for a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We completely agree with Appellant's arguments and with
the
declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Pablo Garcia, Jr.
Claim 1 recites a combination of a "token means for
reading tokens" and a "lockout means." The "tokens" and
"token means" are disclosed to be conventional devices
(specification, p. 4, lines 9-27); e.g., the tokens can be
magnetic strips on employee identification badges or credit
cards, and the token means can be a suitable magnetic strip
reader such as those used in commercial transactions including
credit card scanners (specification, p. 4, lines 11-14). A
patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well
known in the art. Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007