Appeal No. 2001-1862
Application No. 09/102,044
Appellants argue at page 8 of the brief that there is not disclosure that the issuer
receives notification from the recipient that the stored value card had been received.
We agree with appellants. While the examiner maintains in the statement of the
rejection at pages 7-8 of the answer that security is an issue to motivate notification to
activate the cards, in general, the examiner has not addressed why a set value prepaid
card as taught by Your Choice without a name designated at issue need be activated
by the recipient rather than by the purchaser. While we agree with the examiner that
fraud and security issues would have been matters clearly within the level of skill in the
art, the examiner has not addressed these with respect to Your Choice and the other
modifications thereto.
At the Oral hearing appellants’ representative disputed that the name of the
recipient is not in the computer database for the stored value card account. We
disagree with appellants. We find that the language of the claim merely requires
“information about . . .” The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the recipient’s name on the
card and that the required signature would have been on the card, but it is not
embossed. (See answer at page 28.) Again, we agree with the examiner, that the card
when signed would have been marked with a designated recipient’s name/signature.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007