Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
fails to teach the specific recitations of this claim and that
the examiner has failed to address these limitations [brief, page
8]. The examiner responds that Templeton teaches that
information is transferred between the systems using an
application packet [answer, page 27]. Appellants respond that
the specific activities recited in claim 21 are not taught by the
applied prior art [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
We agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to address
the specific limitations of claim 21. We have found no teaching,
and the examiner has pointed to none, regarding the downloading
of a more current version of an application from the host to the
payment terminal when such a more current version is available as
claimed.
We now consider the rejection of claims 5 and 22 based on
Templeton, Funk and Higashiyama. In addition to the arguments
considered above, appellants argue that there is no motivation to
integrate the printer of Higashiyama into a point of sale device
as recited in claim 5 [brief, pages 8-9]. The examiner responds
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to have a printer
within the point of sale terminal because of the convenience
[answer, page 28].
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007