Appeal No. 2004-0269 Page 3
Application No. 09/589,866
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 7 and 11 requires a key, a key ring
and at least one tag, with the tag having disposed thereon a challenge (such as a word,
as recited in claims 7 and 11) and an answer appropriate to the challenge (such as a
definition of said word as recited in claims 7 and 11). Claim 1 recites that the answer is
normally concealed when the challenge is visible and claims 7 and 11 call for the word
and definition to be disposed on opposite surfaces of the tag.
Peckham discloses an educational device comprising a plurality of disks or
tablets A strung upon a rod or wire B, the ends of which rod or wire may be joined
together to form a ring. Each disk is imprinted upon one face with a query in the form of
a character, letter, word or problem and upon its opposite face with a reply to said
query. As conceded by the examiner, Peckham lacks a key ring and a key attached to
the key ring as called for in appellant’s claims.
Luciano discloses a question-answer book having pages with question text 16
printed thereon and microprocessor chips 17 secured to the marginal edge portions 18
of the pages adapted to be read by a handheld reader 11, as illustrated in Figures 2 and
3. The reader 11 is provided with a reader slot which makes the reader positionable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007