Appeal No. 2003-1410
Application 09/272,056
least a portion of an identification data provided by a drawer
(customer) and does not teach comparing the immediately encrypted
identification data with the stored piece of identification
information that is linked to a drawer’s financial information
as set forth in representative claim 1 on appeal in the
authentication clause and correspondingly in mirror image format
in independent claim 26.
As to independent claim 15, a significant feature
argued by appellant as to this claim at pages 14 through 17 of
the principal Brief on appeal is that this claim requires that
authenticated customers be given access to a plurality of Web
vendors with whom the financial institution has a partner
relationship via a secure Web site. This feature relates to the
showing in disclosed figure 1B in Steps 17B and Steps 18B. The
examiner’s arguments at page 6 of the Answer that the Abstract
and the notion of inherency is sufficient to meet this limitation
is misplaced. Our study of the entirety of Sixtus leads us to
conclude that there is absolutely no teaching or suggestion
within this reference of this claimed feature.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007