Appeal No. 2003-2165 Page 13
Application No. 09/067,093
55) would have been selected in accordance with 'earmarking with a restricted code
also into a merchandise list included in a merchant database' because transfer to a
remote jurisdiction's computer for identification of the information was known to require
database access to facilitate authorization. (See Messina (col. 14, ll. 47-55))." (Id.)
Noting that "[t]he scope of Appellant's method is to automatically determine if the sale of
a particular goods [sic] presented for purchase is restricted; based upon a merchandise
code affixed to such goods and communicated to a merchant database containing a list
of restriction codes," (Appeal Br. at 9), the appellant argues, "Messina on the other
hand, verifies the contents of a driver license presented for proof of age when
purchasing alcohol, tobacco or lottery products; as well as communicates the contents
to a remote computer for criminal or humanitarian purposes." (Id.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 53 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
earmarking with a restricted merchandise code goods or services
including said good or service requiring fulfillment of a specific condition
when sold;
storing the restricted code also into a merchandise list included in a
merchant database;
subsequently presenting a particular good or service for sale and
automatically capturing a merchandise code previously attached to said
particular good or service; and
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007