Appeal No. 2003-1022
Application No. 09/152,810
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner asserts
that Rose discloses the claimed subject matter except that
whereas Rose discloses that a card reader at the vendor makes a
call to a billing server to provide the amount of the sale, card
number and that the buyer transfers the card number using the
Internet “or other means” (column 8, lines 8-11), Rose does not
explicitly disclose that the call is being made via a telephone
network.
The examiner turns to Bezos for a teaching of providing a
portion of purchase information over a public telephone system
and concludes that it would have been “obvious...to use a
telephone network to make the corresponding calls in the Rose
system” (answer-page 4) in order to increase the level of
security for the purchaser’s account number, as discussed by
Bezos (column 6, lines 6-11).
Realizing that neither Rose nor Bezos discloses providing a
confirmation number from the billing server to the purchaser, who
then provides it to the vendor, who then sends the confirmation
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007