Appeal No. 95-0456
Application No. 07/933,960
Rather than specifically applying the teachings of the
references to the claim language, the examiner merely refers,
generally, to ATM operations and on-line operations in various
sections of Takesako and to “the obviousness of explicit
client account card data requesting ‘on-line’ operation”
[principal answer, page 2] at column 9 of Bergeron. There is
no explanation as to how or why these alleged teachings of the
two references are to be combined. Additionally, although
Braun and Hudson form part of the rejection, and Braun is
applied as a primary reference, alternatively to Takesako, the
examiner never specifically applies the teachings of these
references to the claim language nor does the examiner
indicate how or why these teachings would be combined with the
teachings of Takesako and/or Bergeron to arrive at the instant
claimed subject matter. In the principal answer, at page 3,
the examiner’s sole reliance on Braun and Hudson is for the
proposition that “[d]ebit ATM card concepts are notoriously
old, in any case, as shown by Braun and Hudson.” Reference to
the final rejection is no help in ascertaining the true nature
of the rejection as it merely refers to things “discussed
previously” [page 2, final rejection]. Further reference back
to the office action of February 3, 1993 merely references
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007