Appeal 2007-0820
Application 09/734,808
1 or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
2 step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at
3 1396).
4 The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
5 presumed to know the relevant prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-
6 Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
7 1986). In determining this skill level, the court may consider various
8 factors including “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions
9 to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication
10 of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id.
11 (cited in In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
12 1995)). In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more
13 factors may predominate. Id. at 962-63, 1 USPQ2d at 1201.
14
15 ANALYSIS
16 Claim Interpretation
17 Appellant argues that claim 5 should be limited to a “local” processor.
18 Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the
19 specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
20 In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,
21 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 5 does not describe the device in terms that
22 limit any function, including the steps of bioauthenticating and determining
23 whether a sub-credit limit is exceeded, to a “local” processor (FF 1). In fact,
24 the words “local” or “locally” appear nowhere in the claim (FF 2). The only
25 recitation in the claim relevant to the question of where the processor and its
26 recited functions may be located in the claimed device is in the preamble,
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013