Appeal No. 2002-0885
Application 09/149,917
receipt information implies generating a record comprising a
digital signature and transaction data, but not the digital
signature containing the specific encrypted information claimed.
We conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1-13 and 25 is reversed.
Claims 26-30
Claim 26 is broader than claims 1, 6, 10, and 14 because it
requires only encrypting "data comprising a retail record having
at least one element related to a transaction" with a merchant
supplied signature key to generate a merchant signature and does
not require encrypting "a retail merchant identification number"
and "a retail customer identification number." Claim 26 does
require generating a record comprising the merchant signature and
detailed transaction data, as shown in Fig. 6. As discussed in
the connection with the rejection of claims 1-13 and 25,
Tognazzini discloses applying a digital signature to receipt
information (col. 5, lines 1-2), but does not disclose that the
digital signature is created by encrypting transaction data. The
digital signature could just be the signature of the store. The
examiner does not address the rejection of claim 26 separately
from claim 1 and has not shown how Davis cures the deficiencies
of Tognazzini. Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007