Appeal No. 2003-0755
Application No. 09/190,993
According to the Examiner (Answer, page 3), Williams discloses the
claimed invention except for the synchronization of the local and
server wallet portions “ . . . by receiving and storing at the
server portion an electronic voucher indicative of the goods
purchased and receiving a request for the electronic voucher at the
server portion and providing the good to a user.” To address this
deficiency, the Examiner turns to the Teicher reference which,
according to the Examiner, discloses a virtual wallet system with
local and remote server portions and which describes the
synchronization of the local and remote server portions by the
storing and processing of a transaction voucher. In the Examiner’s
analysis (id.), the skilled artisan would have been motivated and
found it obvious to have modified the system of Williams to include
the synchronization feature taught by Teicher “ . . . so that
central accounts associated with the local electronic wallet can be
debited for purchases made off-line with the local electronic
wallet.”
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the Williams
and Teicher references, reasonably indicates the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention, and
provides reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007