Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 29
facie case of obviousness-type double patenting of claims 10, 11
and 14. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 14 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 17-32 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,560. The examiner's
position (answer, pages 7 and 8) is that it would have been
obvious to have claimed broader subject matter than what is
claimed in appellants' patent.
Appellants' position (brief, page 47) is that the examiner
does not explain how the limitations of claims 17-32 would have
been obvious over the subject matter of claims 1 and 3 of the
'560 patent. It is argued (id.) that claim 17 includes a
terminal for entering , during a transaction, the unique customer
identification. In contrast, claim 1 of the '560 patent recites
a terminal for entering selected indicia from identification
presented by a customer in order to generate a unique
identification code.
The examiner's response (answer, pages 24 and 25) is that
both recitations perform the same function because a unique
customer identification results from terminal data entry.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007