Appeal No. 2002-0819
Application No. 09/047,533
prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 27, 29,
31-34, 36-40, 42, 44-80 over Morrill and Hall.5
With respect to the rejection of claim 30, the Examiner
relies on Morrill and Shannon (final Office action, page 12).
However, Shannon provides no teaching related to the claimed
determination of the relative geographical proximity of the
customer mobile station and the merchant terminal as a condition
for transferring the transaction amount in order to overcome the
deficiencies of Morrill discussed above with respect to the base
claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 30
over Morrill and Shannon cannot be sustained.6
5 We also note that claim 56 is improperly dependent upon itself and
should be amended to depend from claim 55 which appears to provide the
antecedent basis for the features recited in claim 56.
6 Even if the rejection was meant to be for claim 21, the above-noted
claimed feature, which is present in independent claims 21 and 69, is neither
taught nor suggested by the combination of Morrill and Shannon.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007