Appeal No. 2005-0007
Application 09/364,675
ticket (Figure 2) is a card. On the other hand, we agree with
the examiner that the lottery card is incapable of performing the
card functions set forth in claims 32 through 39. For example,
nothing in the disclosed invention indicates that a “parameter”
is needed from the card before the system can determine whether
the card holder is “in good standing.” According to the
disclosed invention, the determination of being “in good
standing” is determined before any information is taken from the
lottery card. With respect to the “available account” status
associated with the card set forth in claims 32 through 38, we
find that appellant’s disclosure is completely silent as to such
an account associated with the lottery card. Accordingly, the
lack of written description rejection of claims 32 through 39 is
sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 24 through 39
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007