Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
We are aware that the Examiner (Answer, page 19) suggests a
possible alternative interpretation of Yamamoto in which the
information card preparation apparatus (Fig. 17) is considered
the charging information transmitting device, and the bar code
reader the charging information receiving device. We are in
agreement with Appellants (Reply Brief, page 3), however, that
this interpretation does not satisfy the claim language since
Yamamoto’s information card preparation apparatus can not
reasonably be interpreted as sending information to the charging
information receiving device as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, because the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness since all of
the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art references, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claims 13, 18, and 23, as well as claims 14-17,
19-22, and 24-27 dependent thereon, based on the combination of
Kristy and Yamamoto is not sustained.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained
the rejection of claims 9-12, 32-37, and 40-43, but have not
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007