Appeal No. 2003-2165 Page 5
Application No. 09/067,093
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 20-32
• claims 33-42
• claims 53-64.
A. CLAIMS 20-32
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
focus on the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner admits, "Lebet lacks
an explicit recitation of: 'input . . . means for entering into . . . the card data including
said electronic ticket; and decision means including a self-contained means for
determining by said portable card if said event ticket is valid, in response to inputting
into the card a set of appropriate information by a sporting event staff, and with no need
for online verification and authorization from a remote entity.[']" (Examiner's Answer
at 18.) He asserts, however, "Hiroya (FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 6; FIG. 10; FIG. 11; and
col. 16, ll. 1-24) shows elements that suggest 'input . . . means for entering into . . . the
card data including said electronic ticket; and decision means including a self-contained
means for determining by said portable card if said event ticket is valid, in response to
inputting into the card a set of appropriate information by a sporting event staff, and with
no need for online verification and authorization from a remote entity.[']" (Id. at 19.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007