Appeal No. 2003-2165 Page 8
Application No. 09/067,093
Here, Hiroya discloses an "electronic ticket vending and refunding system . . .
comprising a plurality of electronic ticket vending and refunding devices 1 connected to
the telephone line 4, a plurality of terminal devices 3, and a plurality of electronic ticket
storage devices 2 which can be connected to the terminal devices 3. . . ." Col. 11, ll. 49-
55. The passage cited by the examiner teaches that "[t]o judge the validity of an
electronic ticket, when the electronic ticket has the constitution shown in FIG. 10, it is
desirable to compare data in which the electronic signature is decrypted by using the
public key PTk and the ticket information data 610 so as to check for identification."
Col. 16, ll. 5. We are unpersuaded, however, that the validity judgement is made after
the electronic ticket has been purchased or responsive to data input to the electronic
ticket storage device by sporting event staff. To the contrary, Hiroya judges the validity
of an electronic ticket when "purchasing [the] electronic ticket using the electronic ticket
vending and refunding system. . . ." Col. 12, ll. 61-62. Furthermore, the examiner has
not shown that Hiroya judges validity responsive to data input to the electronic ticket
storage device by sporting event staff.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Rosen,
Pitroda, Merrill, Olah, or Benezet cures the aforementioned deficiency of Lebet and
Hiroya. Absent a teaching or suggestion of determining if an event ticket stored in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007