Appeal No. 2007-1703 Page 2
Application No. 09/729,261
We AFFIRM.
Appellant, in the Brief1, argues the claims as a group.2 Pursuant to the rules,
the Board selects representative claim 1 to decide the appeal. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A transaction card for use with a transaction card sensing device,
comprising:
a transaction card core of a material capable of passing at least some
wavelengths of visible light;
front and back overlaminants of a material also capable of passing at
least some wavelengths of visible light applied to the transaction card core;
and
an infrared filter provided to at least one of the transaction card core,
the front overlaminant, and the back overlaminant which is capable of
passing at least some wavelengths of visible light while preventing passage
of infrared light in a predetermined range of wavelengths emitted by an
infrared light source of the transaction card sensing device, wherein said
infrared filter further comprises an infrared filter material that is embedded
within a supporting substance of said transaction card core and incorporated
as an integral part of said transaction card core.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed 17
July 2006) and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed 17 November 2006).
2 The discussion in the Brief with respect to claims 9-11, 20-31, and 33-50 merely
points out what the claims recite. (Br. 8-9). “A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013