Appeal No. 2004-0013
Application No. 09/234,889 Page 13
the rejection of claims 77 and 78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
We turn next to claims 76 and 79. Although these claims
have been listed in separate groups by appellant (brief, page 6),
we observe that the claims have similar arguments. Appellants do
not dispute the combinability of the references, but rather
assert that the combined teachings of the references do not teach
all of the limitations of the claims. From our review of claims
76 and 79, we find that these claims, unlike all of the other
claims before us on appeal, do not recite the use of a stand-
alone terminal at which the identified transaction information is
added to the loyalty program information. Appellants sole
argument with respect to claim 76 (brief, page 12) is that the
combined teachings of the prior art does not describe that:
transaction information is compared with the stored
loyalty program information by an application program
on the smart card microcomputer internally as a
function of the smart card microcomputer independently
of the merchant terminal, that transaction information
stored on the purchase log part of the transaction log
is identified by the application program on the smart
card microcomputer about at least one transaction with
the merchant for which an associated transaction number
is numerically greater than any transaction number for
a transaction with the merchant stored in the stored
loyalty program information, and that the identified
transaction information is added to the stored loyalty
program information by the application program on the
smart card.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007