Appeal 2007-0820
Application 09/734,808
1 Claim 5 reads as follows:
2 5. A consumer electronics device, comprising
3 a memory which stores account information for an account
4 holder and sub-credit limits and bioauthentication information for
5 authorized users of the account;
6 a bioauthentication device which provides bioauthentication
7 information to the memory;
8 a communication link; and
9 a processor, which compares received bioauthentication
10 information to stored bioauthentication information to detect a match,
11 and finds an associated sub-credit limit corresponding to the received
12 bioauthentication information, to enable a purchase over the response
13 network via the communication network up to a maximum of the sub-
14 credit limit, the processor sending the account holder information over
15 the communication link only if the match is detected and the sub-
16 credit limit is not exceeded.
17
18 ISSUE
19 The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
20 holding the combination of Nakano’s consumer electronics device and
21 Dethloff’s and Harada’s bioauthentication means would have rendered the
22 subject matter of claim 5 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
23 time of the invention.
24
25 FINDINGS OF FACT
26 The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
27 preponderance of the evidence.
28 1. Claim 5 does not describe the “consumer electronics device” of
29 the preamble in terms that limit any function, including the
30 steps of bioauthenticating and determining whether a sub-credit
31 limit is exceeded, to a “local” processor.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013