Appeal No. 2004-1596
Application No. 09/544,858
dialog (the first signal) in order to decode the subsequent data
(the second signal) (brief, page 10).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the PC card of Kowalski decodes the initial phase dialogue
as a first signal prior to converting or decoding the transaction
request (answer, page 12). The Examiner further asserts that the
third device of AAPA is configured to ignore the first signal and
to decode the third signal while the second device of AAPA reads
the initial phase dialogue of Kowalski as the first signal in
order to decode the second signal (answer, page 13). The
examiner further argues that the combination of the protocol
selection of Kowalski with the second device enables its use with
a first device in a computer system operating according to
different protocols (answer, page 15).
We remain unconvinced by the Examiner’s argument that the
combination of AAPA and Kowalski is proper and obvious such that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use the cards
(second devices) with the readers (first devices) according to
different protocols (answer, page 15). Notwithstanding
Kowalski’s recognition of the problem with inserting cards in
readers operating according to different protocols (col. 2, lines
43-46), the Examiner has not clearly set forth how combining the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007