Appeal No. 2006-2267
Application No. 09/916,537
portions of a form, in order to save time and prevent errors in filling out forms (Berger, col. 4,
lines 60-67)” (answer, pages 4 and 5).
Berger places a patient’s medical data on a credit card-like medium 10, and the data
placed on the card can be scanned into a computer (Figure 1; Abstract; column 6, lines 25
through 38). Berger decreases the amount of paperwork needed for a patient, and reduces the
number of errors on printed forms (column 4, lines 52 through 67; column 10, lines 5 through
21).
Appellant argues inter alia (brief, pages 13 and 14; reply brief, page 2) that the applied
references, even if properly combinable, still fail to teach or suggest “reading a user data card to
determine a network location at which user information to be added to a form is stored.”
We agree with the appellant’s argument. In Goheen, the card is used strictly for
validation and identification purposes, and it is not used to locate data for form completion
purposes (column 2, lines 51 through 60). In fact, Goheen specifically states that the electronic
card is used in lieu of a printed paper ticket (column 1, lines 14 through 18; column 4, lines 28
and 29). Although a printed copy can be made of patient data in Berger, the card 10 is not used
to determine “a network location” for data that will populate the printed copy.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 and 7 through 13 based
upon the combined teachings of Kennedy, Goheen and Berger is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007