Appeal No. 2003-1659
Application No. 09/193,662
and the HTTP server communicates with the ATM through HTTP
messages.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. Apparatus comprising:
an ATM host, wherein the ATM host is operative to
send and receive ATM transaction messages; and
an HTTP server in operative connection with a
database, wherein the database includes conversion
data, wherein the server includes server software
operative responsive to an ATM transaction message sent
by the ATM host and the conversion data, to generate at
least one data object including transaction data.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Vak et al. (Vak) 5,473,143 Dec. 5, 1995
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 5,706,442 Jan. 6, 1998
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Anderson. Claims 1-6 and 11-37
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Anderson in view of Vak.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007