Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 23
We turn next to independent claim 22. At the outset, we
make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the
teachings and suggestions of Creekmore and Bigari. Appellants
assert (brief, page 30) that claim 22 recites a computer
implemented method which parallels claim 17, and relies on the
same arguments presented for claim 17. In addition, appellants
recite the last limitation of claim 22 (brief, page 32), and
assert (brief, pages 32 and 33) that the subject matter referred
to is not taught by Bigari. However, appellants provide no
specific reasons in support of their assertion. We observe that
the last limitation of claim 22, namely “‘wherein said customer
information response signal depends upon data stored in said
database indicating dollar amount of at least one prior purchase
associated with said unique customer identification,” is met by
the teachings of Creekmore and Bigari because the approval or
non-approval of a customer's check depends on data stored in the
database indicating the dollar amount of the check and whether
any money is due to the merchant for the prior purchase.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As dependent claims 23-26 have not
been separately argued, they fall with independent claim 22.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007