Appeal 2007-2312
Application 09/681,815
Appellant argues that the prior art fails to teach a customer identification badge
that expires after a predetermined time interval if the customer does not verify that
he or she continues to possess the automobile (Rvsd Arg,, 2), and that Kanter and
DeWolf each fail to teach, disclose, or suggest updating the customer identification
badge to reflect that the customer continues to possess the automobile (Rvsd
Argument., 3, 4).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Kanter discloses a “participant's account number is a unique account
number of the participant, such as the participant's social security number, and is
encoded in a magnetic stripe or similar on a plastic card…” (Kanter, col., 17, ll.
54-57) and this customer identification badge is used as part of a referral
recognition system in an incentive program offered by merchants (Kanter, col. 12,
ll. 49-54).
2. DeWolf discloses an asset information registry which can be applied to
vehicles and record maintenance (DeWolf p.10, [0107]) which we find to be an
incentive for the sale of the vehicle like the referral recognition system (FF 1) is to
Kanter.
3. The Examiner found that:
DeWolf discloses that an asset record of what the user
owns can be maintained at time of transaction via a smart
card:
"[0109] In one embodiment, the vehicle asset record is
transferred from the manufacturer or dealer to the buyer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013