The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including 1) the scope and contentofthepriorart; 2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and theprior art; ' The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As discussed below, even if we assumethat the term “portable” requires a means of power and a communication connection that could be supplied in a mobile setting, the asserted prior art nonetheless teaches such a portable device.
Alternatively, Vrotsos teaches a card reader with a means of powerthat could be supplied in a mobile setting, and it would have been obviousto a person ofordinary skill in the art to combine Eisner and Proctorso that Eisner’s PRCTTis portable.
Patent 9,016,566 B2 a person of ordinary skill in the art to combinethe cited teachings of Eisner and Proctor so that Eisner’s PRCTT connects to the hands-free jack on Proctor’s mobile phone, which transmits the converted signalto the central verification facility.
As discussed above, Petitioner explains how a personofordinary skill in the art would have combined Eisner, Vrotsos and Proctor, namely, so that Eisner’s PRCTTis a portable smart card reader device and connects to the hands-free jack on Proctor’s mobile phone.