Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 48, 50 through 63, 66 through 72 and 74 through 82
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tamada in view of Danielson and Hale.
Claims 49 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and
Nemirofsky.
Claims 64 and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Germain.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 29 and 32) and to the final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
23 and 30) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 48, 50 through 63,
66 through 72 and 74 through 82 as being unpatentable over Tamada
in view of Danielson and Hale
Tamada, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a multi-
functional IC card which can be used as a credit card, a cash
card, or the like. The following passage from the reference
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007