Appeal No. 2003-2165 Page 9
Application No. 09/067,093
portable card is valid, wherein the determination is made after the ticket has been
purchased and is responsive to data input to the card by sporting event staff, we are
unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 20 and of claims 21-32, which depend therefrom.
B. CLAIMS 33-42
Admitting that "Lebet lacks an explicit recital of. . . 'an admission stamp,'"
(Examiner's Answer at 29), the examiner makes the following assertions.
Hiroya (FIG. 6; FIG. 12; FIG. 13; col. 15, II. 30-67; and col. 16, ll. 1-24)
shows elements that suggest "means for automatically compiling an
admission stamp by the database; downloading by the database the
stamp into the card and admitting by the control module the ticket holder
to said sporting event based upon said admission stamp; and
subsequently canceling including automatically earmarking by the card
said sporting ticket with said admission stamp to prevent multiple
admissions to said sporting event via the same ticket."
(Id. at 30.) The appellant argues, "Hiroya does not show elements that suggest
Appellant's steps for automatically compiling admission stamps and cancellation
means." (Appeal Br. at 20.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 33 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "verifying the uploaded
ticket by the control module; and if successful, then automatically compiling an
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007