Appeal No. 2006-2981
Application No. 10/099,342
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 17. The claim
specifically requires that user-access information is stored after detecting the
apparatus’ attachment to the user [emphasis added]. Nothing in Ponert
discloses when information is stored, let alone that such information storage
occurs after detecting attachment. Since Ponert fails to disclose all limitations of
claim 17, the examiner’s anticipation rejection will not be sustained.
Regarding claim 16, appellant argues that Ponert does not disclose (1)
storing security information indicating a security violation condition, and (2)
expunging the security information when the condition is detected. The examiner
responds that a security violation condition in Ponert exists when a user attempts
to access certain ski lifts that are not accessible to them based on information
stored in the bracelet [answer, page 10].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 16. The claim
specifically requires expunging the security information when the security
violation condition is detected – a condition that is indicated by the stored
security information. At best, Ponert expunges the security information by
destroying the components that produce the data carrier upon removing the
bracelet. Such expunging of the data, however, hardly occurs upon detecting a
security violation condition that is indicated by the stored security information as
claimed. Even if a security violation condition occurs when the user attempts to
access unauthorized areas as the examiner indicates, Ponert hardly teaches or
suggests expunging the stored information responsive to detecting this security
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007