Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
identification access information over an electronic network from a first location to
an independent third party service provider (independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 24);
(2) whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining
that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would
have been led to substitute a confidential personal identification number in place of
McNeal’s biometric data, in view of the teaching in Abecassis to use personal
identification numbers for verification (claims 2, 17, 19, and 24); and
(3) whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining
that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would
have been led to use a voice-response unit over the phone line of McNeal for
entering check data and access data, as taught by Tedesco (claim 24).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Appellant’s Specification does not provide any definition of the
phrase “personal identification access information.” In fact, the
Appellant’s Specification does not use this phrase at all.
2. Rather, the Specification uses the phrase “personal identification
information” (Specification, passim) and describes in one example that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013