Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
account information which the memory is adapted to store to
include a plurality of images of replicas of cards. As the
applied references, including the portions of Tamada referred to
by the examiner, do not teach, and would not have suggested, a
device having these characteristics, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 53 and 54 as
being unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Hale.
Claim 77
Claim 77 depends from claim 48 and requires at least one of
the transaction records to comprise a receipt. As indicated
above, Hale would have suggested providing the Tamada device with
a memory adapted to store transaction records such as those
embodied by the history trail depicted in Hale’s Figure 5. At
least some of the individual records shown in Figure 5 (see 26-1,
26-3, 26-4), which display the transaction date, vendor and
purchase price, constitute receipts as broadly recited in claim
77. The appellant’s argument to the contrary rests on an
improper reading of limitations from the specification into the
claim. Thus, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 77 as being unpatentable over Tamada in view
of Danielson and Hale.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007