Appeal No. 2000-1962
Application No. 08/697,421
Griffith to the system of Davies could only come from Appellants’
own disclosure, and not from any teachings in the prior art
references themselves.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-4 and 25-27
dependent thereon, based on the combination of Davies and Griffith
is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 5-23 and 29-31 in which Spies is added to the
combination of Davies and Griffith, we do not sustain this
rejection as well. According to the Examiner’s stated analysis
(Answer, page 5), Spies has been added to address the network
environment features of the appealed claims. A review of each of
the independent claims, i.e., claims 5, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 23, in
this rejected group, however, reveals that they each require the
generation of a unique code from transaction data and a unique
identifier, limitations which are identical to those set forth in
independent claim 1 discussed supra. We find nothing in the
disclosure of Spies which corrects the previously discussed
deficiency which we found in the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Davies and Griffith with respect to independent claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007