Appeal No. 2002-0885
Application 09/149,917
data" which is encrypted into the merchant signature, as shown in
appellants' Fig. 6, which is not taught by Davis. Accordingly,
the examiner has not shown limitation (2) to be taught by Davis.
As to limitation (3), customer and merchant secure media
"for storing said verifiable electronic retail transaction
receipts," the examiner interprets the "for storing" limitation
as a mere statement of intended use which is not entitled to
patentable weight and, consequently, Davis does not need to show
storing a detailed transaction receipt (EA4-5; EA10). However,
the examiner also refers to the cash balance information being
stored on the SVC and the transaction being logged or stored
within the POS memory described at column 6, lines 40-43 (EA4).
The "for storing" could be interpreted as a statement of
intended use because storing is not positively claimed even if it
is implied. Davis teaches media which is capable of storing
"verifiable electronic retail transaction receipt" if it existed,
which we found it does not. Thus, it is arguable that Davis
meets limitation (3) and we do not rely on this limitation in
reversing the rejection.
We find that Davis does not teach at least limitations (1)
and (2) of claim 14 and, accordingly, the anticipation rejection
of claims 14-16 is reversed.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007