Appeal No. 2001-1786
Application 08/420,796
With respect to independent claims 39 and 40, which are
drafted in process form, appellant argues that these claims
recite a method of operating a security system whereas none of
the patent claims recite a method or a security system.
Appellant notes that claim 39 recites steps of transferring user
identification data, verifying user authorization, and
transferring a verification result, and that these functions are
not recited in the patent claims. Appellant makes similar
arguments with respect to claim 40 [brief, pages 18-24].
The examiner responds that the recitation of the function
and the intended use of the claims in the patent renders obvious
the method claims on appeal. The examiner also notes that the
steps of these method claims are either inherent in the device
claims of the patent or are the logical result of the
incorporation of known security features [answer, pages 12-13].
The examiner’s double patenting rejection of claims 39
and 40 fails for essentially the reasons argued by appellant in
the brief. The claims of the Eisele patent recite nothing about
user identification data, user authorization, verification
results and personal identification numbers. The steps of the
claims on appeal which perform operations on data of this type
are not inherent in the device of the patent claims and not
-11-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007