Appeal No. 2004-0013
Application No. 09/234,889 Page 14
With respect to claim 79, appellants sole argument (brief, page
14) is that the combined teachings of the prior art as a whole
does not describe:
that loyalty program information is stored in a loyalty
register of a loyalty program application in
programmable memory on a smart card microcomputer, that
transaction information is stored on the purchase log
part of the transaction log in programmable memory on
the smart card microcomputer, that the stored
transaction information is compared with the stored
loyalty program information by an application program
in programmable memory on the smart card microcomputer
internally as a function of the smart card
microcomputer independently of the merchant terminal,
that transaction information stored on the purchase log
part of the transaction log is identified by the
application program in programmable memory on the smart
card microcomputer about at least one transaction with
an associated transaction number that is numerically
greater than any transaction number for the merchant
stored in the stored loyalty program information, and
that the identified transaction information is added to
the stored loyalty program information by the
application program in programmable memory on the smart
card microcomputer.
At the outset, we not that instead of reciting the stand-
alone terminal, claims 76 and 79 recite, inter alia, that the
transaction information is compared with the stored loyalty
information on the smart card independently of the merchant
terminal. We make reference to our findings, supra, with respect
to claim 1. In addition, we find that upon storing the loyalty
program application on the smart card as taught by Willmore, as
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007