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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007