Appeal No. 2006-0395
Application No. 10/116,735
such reconfiguration does not enable or facilitate “access to the transaction system,” as
claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 11-15 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Moderi in view of Templeton because Templeton does not provide for the
deficiency noted supra with regard to the independent claims.
Templeton does disclose transaction systems, as claimed, since it discloses at
least a check acceptance service, which is a type of transaction system contemplated
by the instant invention. However, the examiner uses Templeton only for a teaching of
well known financial transaction programs (see page 7 of the answer), and while
Templeton does disclose “transaction systems,” we find no reason why the skilled
artisan would have been led in any way to combine the transaction systems of
Templeton with Moderi in such a way as to cause a set of instruction executable by the
POS device in Moderi to reconfigure the POS device “to enable access to the
transaction system.” That is, other than impermissible hindsight, we can find no reason
for the artisan to have reconfigured the reprogrammable keyboard of Moderi in such a
manner as to enable access to a transaction system disclosed by Templeton.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007