Ex Parte Sugita

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 25, 2002

08913282 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 KAZUNARI SUGITA
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1317
Application No. 08/913,282
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 11 through 13.
Appellant's invention relates to a portable display device
for displaying information read from an IC card. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A portable display device for displaying data read out
Appeal No. 2000-1317
Application No. 08/913,282
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Pitroda 5,590,038 Dec. 31, 1996
Abe et al. (Abe) 5,686,714 Nov. 11, 1997
(filed Aug. 31, 1995)
Shinsha JP 62-159157 Jan. 06, 1989
Claims 1 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Pitroda and
Shinsha.
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10,
mailed August 10, 1999) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed March 1, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 14,
filed January 12, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16, filed May
1, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 11 through
Appeal No. 2000-1317
Application No. 08/913,282
data. The examiner asserts (Final Rejection, page 3) that in
view of Pitroda's teaching to display historical data of a
transaction from an IC card to eliminate the need for paper
transactions, it would have been obvious to display such
historical data in Abe's display. Further, as Shinsha teaches
alternating between two items for display when only a small
display area is available, the examiner contends that it would
have been obvious to alternate between the two types of data, the
balance data of Abe and the transactional data of Pitroda.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 4) that Pitroda
discloses displaying transaction data to eliminate paper "only in
the context of credit or bank card transactions with multiple
credit and/or bank cards," not with IC cards. We agree. There
is nothing in any of the references that suggests that there are
papers to be eliminated in the use of IC cards. More
importantly, however, appellant argues (id.) that there is "no
motivation disclosed in any of the references to display both
transactional data and balance data substantially concurrently."
We agree. None of the references suggest that one would need or
Appeal No. 2000-1317
Application No. 08/913,282
two types of data at substantially the same time. Accordingly,
the combination of Abe, Pitroda, and Shinsha fails to render the
claims obvious, and we cannot sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 11
through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
apg/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-1317
Application No. 08/913,282
RABIN & CHANPAGNE, PC
1101 14TH STREET, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20005