Appeal No. 2001-1137
Application No. 08/984,053
The examiner incorporates the statement of the rejection from the final rejection
(final rejection at pages 2-5) and maintains that Zuppicich teaches accessing a plurality
of card reader configuration records when the system selects a protocol for the
established card type. The examiner does not provide a specific teaching for this
limitation, but appears to rely on the fact that high level language commands from a
host program are translated into low level protocol for the appropriate card type. (See
final rejection at page 2.) We disagree with the examiner and find that this is merely a
translation of the commands to a different form and not an accessing of a plurality of
reader configurations. The examiner appears to not appreciate the difference between
selecting between a number of separate and distinct types of card readers as one facet
of the claimed invention and also selecting between a number of separate and distinct
types of card as the other facet of the claimed invention. If Zuppicich merely teaches
the adaptation of the configuration of the single reader to multiple different types of
cards, this only teaches one of the two facets of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the examiner’s reliance on Clark to teach accessing one of a
plurality of card configurations is misplaced with respect to the use of card
configurations records. While a smart card is envisioned by Clark to be a CPU to be
used with any computing station in the future, we do not find that it teaches or suggests
using both card configurations and card reader configurations to configure a software
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007