Appeal No. 2003-1659
Application No. 09/193,662
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue that
Anderson does not teach or suggest an HTTP server with server
software that is responsive to both an ATM transaction message
sent by the ATM host and conversion data in a data store or
generating an object that includes transaction data. Appellants
also argue that Vak does not teach or suggest a system for use
with an HTTP server. Appellants argue that it would not have
been obvious to modify Anderson with the teachings of Vak to
produce the claimed invention. Finally, appellants argue that
the factual findings of the rejection do not support a prima
facie case of obviousness [brief, pages 20-24].
The examiner simply responds that Vak teaches the claimed
ATM host and that an HTTP server would be inherently required to
interact via the Internet. The examiner also responds that the
claimed conversion data is met by the manipulated financial
information of Anderson [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants respond that there is no evidence of record that
Vak teaches use of the Internet or HTTP. Appellants argue that
Vak’s invention does not contemplate an Internet based system.
Appellants note that EFT networks do not require use of the
Internet. Finally, appellants argue that Anderson does not teach
conversion data associated with server software [reply brief].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007