Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
appellants do not point to any definition of the claimed “data
subscription services” in the specification.
With regard to the rejection of claim 49, appellants argue
that OrdaCard merely describes server software which is believed
separate from an ID card personalization device (Brief, page 13).
This argument is not persuasive for reasons stated by the
examiner (Answer, page 8), namely that the server, once connected
to the network and printer, may be considered as part of the ID
card “device.”
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 33, 34, 39 and 49 under
section 102(b) over OrdaCard.
B. The § 102(e) Rejection over Provost
The examiner finds that every claimed limitation is
described by Provost (Answer, page 5). Appellants argue that
Provost fails to disclose or suggest that printer (106) includes
a “network adapter” or a “web client”, merely referring to a
“customer” (Brief, page 6).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. As noted by the
examiner (Answer, page 8), the “network type connection” taught
by Provost (col. 5, l. 37) requires at a minimum a hardware
adapter. Appellants have not contested this assertion. As
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007