Appeal No. 2006-2981
Application No. 10/099,342
device. When a data storage device is destroyed, the data stored therein is
“expunged” for all practical purposes.
We also disagree with appellant’s argument that the data stored in Ponert
does not constitute “security information related to the user” as claimed. Ponert’s
data carrier provides a nontransferable personal entitlement to enable the user to
utilize certain services [Ponert, col. 1, lines 50-55]. Although Ponert does not
specifically identify the type of data stored in the microchip as appellant indicates,
such data nevertheless contributes to producing the data carrier that provides a
personal entitlement for that particular user. In our view, such data reasonably
constitutes “security information related to the user” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation.
Since Ponert expressly or inherently discloses all limitations of claim 21,
the examiner’s anticipation rejection of that claim is therefore sustained. Since
appellant has not separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 23, 26,
and 27, these claims fall with independent claim 21. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(vii).
Regarding claim 17, appellant argues that Ponert fails to disclose a means
for storing information about a user’s access after sensing attachment of the
apparatus [brief, page 7]. The examiner argues that the data carrier is the
means for storing security information when the bracelet is closed [answer, page
9].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007