Appeal No. 2002-1846
Application 09/146,199
B. The Rejection of Claims 21, 22 and 37 as
Unpatentable over Mindrum and Bracthl
Claims 21, 22, and 37 are reproduced below:
21. A system according to claim 20 further comprising means for
collecting and storing credit provider authorization time-out data, said time-out
data comprising an amount of time-outs received during electronic tendering
transactions.
22. A system according to claim 20 further comprising means for
collecting and storing credit provider authorization time-out data, said time-out
data comprising an amount of time-outs received during electronic tendering
transactions, wherein said tendering transactions each involve an electronic
request for authorization for credit from a credit provider.
37. A process according to claim 36 further comprising the step of
collecting and storing credit provider authorization time-out data, said time-out
data comprising an amount of time-outs received during electronic tendering
transactions.
With regard to claims 21, 22 and 37, the examiner relies on Mindrum as teaching system
“time-outs” and on Bracthl as teaching the collecting of data from point of sales terminals for
future analysis. See page 7 of the examiner’s answer. However, the examiner does not indicate,
within the context of the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 37, just what is relied on to teach each of
the recitations in independent claims 20 and 36 on which the claims 21, 22 and 37 depend.
We note, however, that the examiner has acknowledged on page 7 of Paper No. 17 that
Mindrum does not explicitly teach a method that logs event data such as loop errors, terminal
reload, and items not-on-sale, and also has not asserted any “implied” teaching by Mindrum in
that regard. Moreover, we have already determined that what the examiner regards as a
disclosure in Mindrum for a “price change at terminal” is not really a “price change at terminal”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007