Appeal No. 2002-0885
Application 09/149,917
card issuer (not the merchant), the current transaction count is
encrypted with the derived signature key to provide a signing
key, and the transaction amount is encrypted with the signing key
to generate the SVC transaction signature. Thus, the final SVC
transaction signature contains an encrypted SVC identification
number (which could be considered a retail customer
identification number) and a transaction count and a transaction
amount (which together are considered transaction data), but we
find no teaching of it containing a retail merchant
identification number, as claimed. Nor is the SVC transaction
signature intended to be stored on the smart card or at the
merchant, as claimed. Davis also generates a transaction
signature by encrypting the transaction amount, the SVC
transaction count, and at least a portion of the SVC transaction
signature with a signing key (col. 15, lines 35-39), where the
signing key is generated in the security module (col. 15,
lines 30-34). The transaction signature might be considered
encryption of transaction data with a merchant supplied signature
key. However, we do not find any teaching of encrypting all
three pieces of data with a merchant supplied signature key to
generate a merchant supplied signature, as claimed in limitation
(1). Therefore, the transaction signature in Davis is not the
merchant signature. In addition, limitation (2) requires that
the "detailed transaction data" is separate from the "transaction
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007