Appeal No. 2002-0885
Application 09/149,917
Claims 1-13 and 25
Independent claims 1, 6, and 10 contain limitations
corresponding to limitations (1) and (2) discussed in connection
with claim 14, which we found were not disclosed in Davis.
The examiner finds that Tognazzini teaches, at column 4,
line 67, to column 5, line 8, generating/storing a retail
merchant identification number, a retail customer identification
number, and transaction data; encrypting transaction data; and
generating a transaction record and storing it on a POS system
(EA5-6). The examiner finds that "Tognazzini does not teach
storing a merchant supplied signature key or encrypting the data
with the merchant supplied signature key" (EA6), but that Davis
teaches "encrypting transaction data with the merchant supplied
signature key . . . to generate a merchant signature" (EA6). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to apply the
merchant-supplied signature key of Davis et al. to the receipt
authentication method of Tognazzini for the purpose of adding a
level of encryption safeguard to the electronic transaction since
both references pertain to smart card transactions and since the
encryption step [is] simply a matter of protecting the security
of the transaction" (EA6).
Appellant argues that Tognazzini indicates that optional
digital signature may be generated and associated with receipt
information, but no additional details are provided as to how
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007