Appeal No. 2002-1982
Application No. 08/863,462
without any other inquiries. On the other hand, claims 10 and 15
do not limit the outcome to only two possible decisions and
therefore, do not preclude the possibility that the personal
identification number may not be entered in the “not verified”
state when a “substantial match” is not established. However,
limiting the determination of a valid user to only two
conditions, as recited in claim 1, precludes that possibility and
the additional inquiry for determining a “substantial” match,
which prompts the entry of the personal information only when a
substantial match is established.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that the claimed system
allows access to the dial-up services even if the user has not
enrolled in the system (brief, pages 10 and 30), we note that the
claims actually require prior use. Step (d), in claim 1 for
example, recites “when the user has used the dial-up service
previously” as a condition for using the dial-up service.
In view of the analysis made above, we find that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation with
respect to claims 10 and 15, but not with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 10-12
and 15-17 over Hunt, whereas the rejection of claims 1-3 cannot
be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007