Appeal No. 2003-0755
Application No. 09/190,993
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In other words, while Appellants contend (Brief, page 6) that,
in contrast to the claimed invention, Williams does not disclose a
system with local and remote server portions for carrying out the
method steps of claim 14, the Examiner has relied on Teicher for
providing a teaching of the voucher receipt and processing
limitations of claim 14. Similarly, although Appellants argue
(Brief, pages 7 and 8) that Teicher does not disclose locally and
remotely residing virtual wallet portions, this teaching is clearly
provided by Williams.
Further, we find to be without merit Appellants’ assertions
(Brief, page 7) that Teicher does not disclose the voucher
processing features set forth in representative claim 14. We find
no error in the Examiner’s assertion that Teicher, in particular at
column 10, lines 20-28, discloses the storing and processing of
transaction orders, i.e., vouchers, at a wallet server including
requests for the debiting of customer accounts and the transferring
of funds to a merchant.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007