Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 25
We turn next to independent claim 30. Appellants assert
(brief, pages 32 and 33) that the last limitation of claim 30,
which recites “‘updating transaction data and a dollar amount of
purchases associated with said unique customer identification and
said customer database in response to entry of said unique
customer identification and said transaction data at said
terminal” is not taught or suggested by Bigari. We are not
persuaded by appellants' assertion because Creekmore discloses
updating transaction data (entering into the database the use of
a check by the customer that day to pay for a transaction and the
dollar amount of purchases (entering into the system the dollar
amount of the check cashed) associated with the unique customer
identification (customer checking account number) in response to
entry of the unique customer number (checking account number) and
transaction data (the transaction of cashing a check to pay for a
transaction) at the terminal. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As dependent
claims 31 and 32 have not been separately argued, they fall with
independent claim 30. The rejection of claims 31 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 8, 9, 12 and 13
under the judicially-created doctrine of obvious-type double
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007