Appeal No. 2001-1137
Application No. 08/984,053
final rejection (Paper No. 12, mailed Mar. 16, 2000) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed Aug. 29, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 17, filed Aug., 3, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No.
19, filed Oct., 16, 2000) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that Zuppicich merely teaches operating on different cards, but
only on a single type of card reader. (See brief at page 10.) Appellants argue that in
contrast to Zuppicich, the claimed invention requires the software tool interface be
configured to communicate with different card readers and different cards. (See brief at
page 11.) Appellants argue that Clark does not remedy the deficiency in Zuppicich and
does not teach access to card reader configuration records or configuring the software
tool to communicate with both cards and card readers in the system of Zuppicich. (See
brief at page 11.) We agree with appellants and do not find that either Zuppicich or
Clark teach or suggest configuring a software tool to communicate with both cards and
card readers.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007