Appeal No. 2002-0885
Application 09/149,917
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 7) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 11) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
(Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 14-16
Appellant argues that Davis does not teach the claimed
features of: (1) a computer program that encrypts the three
pieces of data of a retail merchant identification number, a
retail customer identification number, and transaction data with
a merchant supplied signature key to generate a merchant
signature; (2) then generating a verifiable electronic retail
transaction receipt comprising said merchant signature and
detailed transaction data; and (3) customer and merchant media
storing the verifiable electronic retail transaction receipt on a
customer secure medium and a merchant secure medium (Br7).
In the reply brief, appellant focuses on limitation (1),
arguing that "[a]mong its failings, Davis does not teach and does
not render obvious using a merchant supplied signature key to
encrypt a retail merchant identification number AND a retail
customer identification number AND transaction data to form a
merchant signature, as claimed . . . [in] claim 14" (RBr2).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007