Ex parte Helbig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 1998

08124954 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 21, 1993. 1
Neither of the Amendments After Final (paper numbers 72
and 9) was entered by the examiner (paper numbers 8 and 10).
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WALTER A. HELBIG
____________
Appeal No. 95-3019
Application No. 08/124,9541
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 12
through 3.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for providing access to a computer.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
Appeal No. 95-3019
Application No. 08/124,954
2
1. A trusted computing system, comprising:
a computing apparatus including a keyboard port, and
responsive to keyboard signals applied to said keyboard port;
a keyboard including a plurality of keys and an output port,
for generating, at said output port of said keyboard, keyboard
signals representing keystrokes;
a card reader electrically and mechanically coupled to said
output port of said keyboard and to said keyboard port of said
computing apparatus, said card reader being for electrically
coupling a removeable access control card to said keyboard output
port and to said keyboard port of said computing apparatus; and
a plurality of removable access cards, each of which is
physically arranged to be mechanically and electrically coupled
to said card reader, each of said access cards including memory
means preloaded with personal identification information, and
comparison means coupled to said memory means, for, when inserted
into said card reader, assuming first and second modes of
operation, and for, in said first mode of operation, comparing
said keyboard signals with said personal identification
information, and for, when said comparison matches said keyboard
signals with said personal identification information, switching
to said second mode of operation, and for, in said second mode of
operation, coupling said keyboard signals to said keyboard port
of said computing apparatus.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
McClung et al. (McClung) 4,951,249 Aug. 21, 1990
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by McClung.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McClung.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 95-3019
Application No. 08/124,954
3
OPINION
Although “McClung et al (’249) uses a card inserted into a
card reader to identify the user to the computer” (Final
rejection, page 2), and the magnetically encoded identification
card contains information (column 6, line 65 through column 7,
line 32), we agree with appellant’s arguments (Brief, pages 6
through 9) that the removable access card in McClung contains
card identification information as opposed to a user’s personal
identification information, and lacks a comparison means for
comparing keyboard signals with the stored personal
identification information. The examiner’s argument (Answer,
page 4) that the “‘security system circuit board’ (item 102) in
McClung et al (’249)” performs the claimed functions is in error
because without a comparison means located on the access card,
McClung is incapable of performing the comparison operation and
subsequent operations required by the claims on appeal.
Appeal No. 95-3019
Application No. 08/124,954
4
Inasmuch as the access card in McClung lacks a memory with a
user’s personal identification information stored therein, and a
comparator, all of the rejections based upon the teachings of
McClung are reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3019
Application No. 08/124,954
5
William H. Meise
P. O. Box 344
Penns Park, PA 18943
KWH/jrg
APPEAL NO. 95-3019 - JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPLICATION NO. 08/124,954
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ BARRETT
APJ CARMICHAEL
DECISION: REVERSED
Typed By: Jenine Gillis
DRAFT TYPED: 23 Dec 98
FINAL TYPED:
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 95-3019
Serial No. 08/124,954
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge BARRETT
Judge CARMICHAEL
Received: 04 Jun 98
Typed: 05 Jun 98
DECISION: REVERSED
Send References: Yes No
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Mailed:
Palm: ____
Netscape:_____
Updated Monthly Disk: ____