Appeal No. 2002-0885
Application 09/149,917
these digital signatures are created (Br8). It is argued that
Davis does not cure the deficiencies of Tognazzini (Br9).
We disagree with the examiner's finding 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. The
cited portion of Tognazzini discloses generating an optional
digital signature for assuring the authenticity of the receipt
and applying it to the receipt information. However, Tognazzini
does not disclose that the digital signature is created by
encrypting transaction data, much less the three items of a
retail merchant identification number, a retail customer number,
and transaction data, as claimed. The digital signature could
just be the signature of the store (e.g., Nordstrom's). The
examiner does not rely on any other portion of Tognazzini to
support the rejection. The examiner admits that Tognazzini does
not disclose encrypting with a merchant supplied signature and
relies on Davis. As we found in connection with the anticipation
rejection of claim 14, Davis does not disclose encrypting a
retail merchant identification number, a retail customer
identification number, and transaction data with a merchant
supplied signature key to generate a merchant signature, and,
thus, neither Tognazzini nor Davis teach these claim limitations.
Tognazzini's disclosure of applying the digital signature to
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007