Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 11
From our review of Goldman we find that although Goldman
discloses (col. 5, lines 24-54) a table providing input to the
cashier as to whether the customer's check should be accepted, we
find that Goldman does not disclose that the stored transaction
data includes the dollar amount of purchases. We agree with the
examiner that Goldman discloses (in the table of column 5) the
cashing of a number of checks during a current period (col. 11,
lines 56-64). However, claim 33 requires more than the storing
of data relating to the time period of prior transactions. The
claim requires that the dollar amount of the transactions are
stored in the customer database. We do not agree with the
examiner that a worthless check having no value is a disclosure
of a dollar amount of the transaction. A worthless check has no
dollar amount of value, even if the transaction had a dollar
amount. Because Goldman does not disclose storing the dollar
amount of prior transactions in the customer database, we find
that Goldman does not anticipate claim 33. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
In addition, because independent claim 34 also requires that
the stored transaction data includes the dollar amount of the
transaction, the rejection of claim 34, and claims 35-39,
dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007