Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
of transaction records as defined in the appellant’s
specification2 and recited in claim 48. The definition of the
term “transactional information” in the appellant’s specification
(see n.1, supra) is so broad and open-ended that it comprehends
the review history trail records taught by Hale. Finally, the
self-evident advantages and conveniences afforded by the
electronic transactions disclosed by Tamada and Hale, the memory
for storing transaction records taught by Hale, and the touch
sensitive display disclosed by Danielson would have provide the
artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to utilize these
features in the pocket-sized device disclosed by Tamada.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 48 as being unpatentable over Tamada in view
of Hale and Danielson.
Claims 53 and 54
Claim 53 depends from claim 48 and requires the
transactional information which the memory is adapted to store to
include a plurality of images corresponding to receipts of
transactions. Claim 54 depends from claim 48 and requires the
2 Words which are defined in the specification must be given
the same meaning when used in a claim. McGill, Inc. v. John Zink
Co., 736 F.2d 666, 674, 221 USPQ 944, 949 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1037 (1984).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007