Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
OPINION
A. The § 102(b) Rejection over OrdaCard
The examiner sets forth findings of fact regarding each
rejected claim, showing where every limitation of each claim is
described by the OrdaCard reference (Answer, page 4). Appellants
argue that nowhere in OrdaCard is there any disclosure that the
data communications are being processed by an ID card
personalization device or that the software that is utilized to
provide the service is a component of the ID card device (Brief,
page 4).
These arguments are not well taken since claim 33 on appeal
does not require data communications that are processed by the
device or any particular software. As properly construed by the
examiner (Answer, pages 4 and 7), claim 33 on appeal merely
includes at least three components, namely a particular recited
hardware component, a network adapter, and a web client. See
Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l Inc., 212 F.3d
1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“a [claim]
drafter uses the term ‘comprising” to mean ‘I claim at least what
follows and potentially more.’”); and Exxon Chemical Patents Inc.
v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555, 35 USPQ2d 1801, 1802 (Fed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007