Appeal No. 2001-1137
Application No. 08/984,053
tool. While we find that both Zuppicich and Clark teach adapting a single type of card
reader, neither teaches nor fairly suggests the adapting for different card readers.
The examiner maintains that the claim merely recites the concept of matching
the proper set of protocols to read a particular type of card in the method of Zuppicich.
(See answer at page 3.) The examiner maintains that once the proper set of protocol is
selected, the card reader has a specific configuration to communicate with the selected
card. (See answer at page 3.) The examiner maintains that appellants fail to realize
that cards are read through card readers and questions whether appellants realize that
the reader used must be configured to communicate with the different cards. While we
agree with the examiner that a specific reader type must be configured to different
cards, this does not address the limitations recited in the language of independent claim
22. Independent claim 22 requires “accessing one of a plurality of reader configuration
records for configuring the software tool interface to communicate with the card reader.”
Since neither Zuppicich and Clark have a plurality of (different) card readers, there
would not be a plurality of reader configuration records to access one of the plurality.
Therefore, we find that the combination of Zuppicich and Clark does not teach or fairly
suggest the invention recited in independent claim 22, and dependent claims 23-29.
Similarly, we find that independent claims 37, 40, 42 and 50 contain similar limitations
which are not taught of fairly suggested by the combination of Zuppicich and Clark.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007