Appeal 2007-1672
Application 09/966,540
2. The Examiner argues that “Appellant describes the device as a
‘privacy system that interacts with the claimed electronic transaction device’
(Remarks, 11-16-04, page 8). However, this description of the transaction
device clearly contradicts the device as it appears in Appellant’s
Specification (Specification, figure 5 and page/paragraphs 11/39-13/44)”
(Answer 4 and 10).
C. PRINCIPLE OF LAW
The test for compliance with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112
is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in light of the
application disclosure as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971).
D. ANALYSIS
As best we understand it, the Examiner is arguing that while the body
of the claim calls for a combination of transaction device and privacy
system, the preamble directs the claim to the device alone. The Examiner
appears to find the claim is internally inconsistent. We disagree.
The claim is drawn to a transaction device. The preamble clearly
states that it is directed to “[a]n electronic transaction device comprising.”
This is followed by the three elements that comprise the device: a sensor
module, a wireless module, a communication module. The body of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013