Appeal 2007-1672
Application 09/966,540
E. CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11,
13, 14, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Buckley.
Claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buckley in view of Ausems.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buckley
in view of Walker.
Claims 16, 19, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buckley and Walker in
view of Peckover.
The Appeal Brief addresses these rejections but argues in support of
the patentability of claims 5, 12, 15-25, 27- and 29 for the same reason used
in support of the patentability of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 26, namely
that the prior art fails to show a device which does not reveal the user’s
identity (Appeal Br. 4-5). Since we have found that Appellant has failed to
show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) over Buckley on the ground that Appellant did not
show that one of ordinary skill would not read Buckley as disclosing a
transaction device comprising a communication module configured not to
provide the identification of a user, we likewise find that Appellant has
failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 12; 15, 17,
18, 20-25, 27, and 29; and, 16, 19, and 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Buckley in view of Ausems, Walker and Peckover, respectively.
No other arguments having been made, we affirm the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013