Appeal No. 2003-2102 Page 6
Application No. 09/254,723
deficiencies of Vazvan, the examiner turns to Heinonen for a
teaching of the use of a PIN number and the registering of the
portable terminal in the radio network.
We note at the outset that appellant does not dispute the
combinability of Vazvan and Heinonen, but rather asserts that the
combined teachings of Vazvan and Heinonen does not teach or
suggest the claimed invention. Specifically, appellant asserts
(brief, page 4) that the step of carrying out a credit rating
check is not considered by Vazvan. It is further argued that
Vazvan and Heinonen are not concerned with a card number stored
in a multifunction chip (brief, pages 4 and 6). It is
additionally argued that Vazvan is not directed toward seeking
confirmation for payment at the user terminal (id.). This
argument is broadened by appellant in the reply brief (pages 1-5)
to be that there is no teaching or disclosure in Vazvan or
Heinonen of the claimed displaying step: where the claim requires
that the amount of money entered at the business terminal is then
displayed at the user terminal via the call from the user
terminal to the business terminal.
From our review of Vazvan and Heinonen, we find, for the
reasons which follow, that at least Heinonen discloses a
multichip module having a card number stored therein. Heinonen
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007